Saag 


pty 
* 


A 
j 
aie: 
sabe at 


a 
— 


eS 
et 


2 trae ie 


‘iit ted oe Ott 
ad Bt kad Fi 


VS ILLS 
PAPER hi 


Meee 


a 
if] 


PPUSEPEO YP OP 
Pes y Seer OE 


oi 


4 
2 
y 
SA TART ANA, 
y 
es 
yb 
PORE RRNS 
a 
ve ¥, 


: 
‘ead notins 


Tae 
a iii 4) 


ieateern te 
a iy 


« 


ihn 
A fen By 
rn 


Wanna. 4 
Cony 


oa 
on 


5 
a 


Aste 


4a 
Ad 
att tA 


TAT EP IS ERO ES DR 
if pA f 

; Lae iS) Na ee i 
Ge uenias nuts 
SUT nA 
eth Yoei 
ene rie iW ite 
OER ek) 
BAS tet 


ets 
BAS ae 

Ee ARy DES Ke 
aux 


* 
7 , ui an * CRASS 
43 iy ee 


EAE 

ARNE RSA, y FARRER CES CRATE EM 
TA Se yy PEP TIA 

TAD: ARRAS 

erate ae 
res 
Mona ak 

2 2 ’ 


* 


eek ey A 
dey ey enaee as 
a Ath 
rua 


. vee 
Bren eA AN LY 
7” tte « Wnt 


4 ae 


thaw cee 


SERA 
Sees ECOL 
® el 


pn 
Poort ra 
SS 


a 
c 


od ‘2 
a 


oes 
> 
Sey ea) 
an 


Mo paar 
“ane 

7% 

a 


saree 


a 


Le 
ia, 
Gy 


oe, 


on 


a4 


aah 
Ppl 
ee, 
eter er 


4 


aA 


4 
ete 


‘vere ree 


i 
bLeakS 
SOK 


* 


eet 


vY 


ry 
AY 


sei 
ite 


3 


a 


a 


syorinitiry 
ieee 


Lt 
A 


i 


wae 


« 
i 


14, 
OO) 


vie 


Shee 
ay 


Es 
eS 


‘= 
SERS 


3 
Rep 
= 


Tr 


a 


eCACEREE CRA RSS ES 


vee eo : 
OOreeer sy et titer 


Noa ® sae eel 
Se 


eerste cet 


ea) Bagh 


ERG 


ntl Sens ats ee 
nine an Naa 
Rates Sat'sé, 


a 


a tT F 


Wa estile iY 


ame 
su 
eee. 


La : 
gyeper te SeREeCKEKS ¥ 


Bas pis aie RY 


Ls 


Spt tssict 
; Seistsistiestret basesteay 


pep stet eect Seta te tees 


ino 


> A 
from the Library. 


en 


Ruabor. 


LIBRARY 
sity of III 
BOOK. 


< 


fentning and 


Accessions No..£0...400..£.@........ 


iver 


é 
a 
i 
é 


Books are not to be tak 


CLASS. 


" 
w 
e 
° 
@ 
Ce 


Un 


Go 


The person charging this material is re- 
sponsible for its return on or before the 
Latest Date stamped below. 

Theft, mutilation and underlining of books 


are reasons for disciplinary action and may 
result in dismissal from the University. 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS LIBRARY AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 


L161—O-1096 


Se, 
Pottag! < 


= 


Mee ent et 


PRINCIPLES 


OF 


GREEK ETYMOLOGY 


Uniform with the Present Work. 
One Volume (600 pp.), 8vo. 12s. 


THE GREEK VERB. Irs SrructurE anD DEVELOPEMENT. 


By Dr. GEORG CURTIUS, Professor of the University of Leipzig. 
Translated into English, with the Author’s sanction. By A. 5S. 
WILKINS, Lirt. D., LL.D., Professor of Latin and Compara- 
tive Philology; and E. B. ENGLAND, M.A., Assistant Lecturer 
in Classics, Owens College, Manchester. 


The body of the work contains very many emendations and additions 


to the first edition, and may be regarded as the fullest and most 
learned examination of the phonetic growth of the manifold forms 
of the Greek verb, and as a masterly dissertation on Comparative 
Philology. Educational Times. 


THE STUDENTS GREEK GRAMMAR; A Grammar 


A 


OF THE GREEK LANGUAGE. By Dr. GEORG CURTIUS. Trans- 
lated under the Revision of the Author. Edited by Wm. SmITH, 
D.C.L. and LL.D. Twelfth Edition. (386 pp.) Post 8vo. 6s. 


SMALLER GRAMMAR OF THE GREEK LAN- 
GUAGE FoR THE MIDDLE AnD Lower ForMSs IN SCHOOLS. 


Abridged from the above Grammar. Fifteenth Edition. (220 pp.) 
12mo. 3s. 6d. 


ELUCIDATIONS OF THE STUDENT'S GREEK GRAM- 


MAR. By Dr. GEORG CURTIUS. Translated by Evsetyn 
AsBpotT, M.A., Fellow and Tutor of Balliol College, Oxford. 
Second Edition, revised. Post 8vo. 7s. 6d 


PRINCIPLES 


OF 


GREEK ETYMOLOGY 


By GHORG CURTIUS 


PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF LEIPZIG 


Filth Edition 


TRANSLATED BY 
AUGUSTUS S. WILKINS, LirrD., LL.D. 


PROFESSOR OF LATIN AND COMPARATIVE PHILOLOGY 


AND 


EDWIN B. ENGLAND, M.A. 


ASSISTANT LECTURER IN CLASSICS 
IN THE OWENS COLLEGE, VICTORIA UNIVERSITY, MANCHESTER 


VOTE 


LONDON 
JOHN MURRAY: ALBEMARLE STREET 
1886 


[ All rights reserved | 


@rfory 


_ PRINTED BY HORACE HART, PRINTER TO THE UNIVE 


TRANSLATORS’ PREFACE. 


THE first edition of this translation of the ‘Grundzitige der 
Griechischen Etymologie, published in 1875, 1876, was made 
from the sheets of the fourth edition of the original, as it 
passed through the press. A fifth edition of the latter was 
published at Leipzig in 1879. Although not much exceeding 
in bulk the preceding edition, it contained very extensive 
additions, and not a few corrections, while some important 
sections were wholly rewritten. Room was found for these 
changes by the withdrawal partly of explanations no longer 
regarded as tenable, partly, and much more frequently, of 
the criticisms of theories put forward by other scholars, but 
now so generally rejected as no longer to call for discus- 
sion. The very thorough revision, to which the work was 
thus submitted, gives it a claim to be regarded as containing 
the author’s most mature and deliberate judgement ; while the 
untimely death, which robbed the science of Comparative 
Philology of one of its most illustrious exponents, at a time 
when his ripe and sober scholarship seems to be especially 
needed, has stamped it with a final character. It has hence 
appeared to be our duty to make this second edition of the 
translation nothing more than a faithful reproduction of the 
original. | 

It is impossible to deny that the work does not hold on 
some points the same position of authority which was almost 
universally allowed to it ten years ago. From the year 1876 


al TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


onwards a series of articles or of independent works have 
been issued, mainly by the younger German philologists, which, 
though not always agreeing in the results to which they 
have led, have been based on the same general principles, and 
have been commonly regarded as evidence of the rise of a 
‘junggrammatisch’ school. The cardinal principles of this 
school are (1) that all phonetic change of a mechanical 
character works according to laws which admit of no excep- 
tions: (2) that the operation of analogy was most extensive 
at a very early stage in the history of language, and tended 
largely to the association of forms. Of these principles the 
latter affects to the greatest extent questions as to the origin 
of inflexions, such as are dealt with in Professor Curtius’s 
comprehensive and most valuable treatise on ‘The Greek 
Verb ;’ the former has a direct relation to the problems handled 
in the present work, especially in Book III. In view of the 
wide acceptance which these principles have found, and the 
important changes which they have effected, especially in the 
manner in which the vowel-system is now commonly regarded, 
it was a matter for serious and repeated consideration, whether 
it would not be our duty to call attention by frequent notes 
to the bearing which they have on some of Professor Curtius’s 
conclusions. Several reasons have prevented us from doing so. 
In the first place, the attempt to carry this out with complete- 
ness would have increased very materially the size of a work, 
which the author, as he showed by his unsparing retrench- 
ment, in the last edition, of everything at all superfluous, 
wished to be kept within its present limits. Secondly, although 
on some points the new school have made contributions of 
permanent value to the Science of Philology, as Professor 
Curtius in his latest work’ was not slow to acknowledge, 
many of their conclusions have not yet been sufficiently sifted, 
and generally approved, to find their way into a work which 
has won its place by nothing more than by its marked 


* «Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung’ Leipzig 1885. 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. Vii 


sobriety and caution. Thirdly, it may be remarked that the 
value of the vast collection of linguistic facts, which forms the 
bulk of the present work, is little, if at all, affected by any 
modification of the theories, which are suggested to explain 
some of the less common phenomena. Fourthly, the English 
reader may naturally desire to have this epochal work once 
at least placed before him in the form in which it was finally 
left by its author. And finally, we may plead the personal 
reason that to annotate a work of this magnitude with the 
completeness requisite if the work was to be undertaken at 
all, would, with the leisure at our command, have delayed too 
long the republication of a book which has been for some time 
out of print, and which has been universally recognized as 
indispensable for the scientific study of Greek. We have, 
therefore, contented ourselves with giving as an appendix to 
the preface a list of the principal works which have appeared 
since the date of the fifth edition, especially such as set forth 
the principles or the conclusions of the new school of Philology. 
The teacher will find in these abundant material for sup- 
plementing, or, if in his judgement it should be necessary, of 
correcting the doctrines which are here stated by Curtius. 
For the student, we do not wholly abandon the hope ex- 
pressed in our former preface that at some future time the 
substance of the present work may be adapted to his needs, 
with any additions or corrections that the progress of philo- 
logical science may require. 

Among the minor alterations in this edition, we may call 
attention to the fact that the Sanskrit words are now accented. 
In view of the increased importance conceded to accentuation 
as bearing upon phonetic laws, especially since the publication 
of Karl Verner’s important paper in Kuhn’s ‘ Zeitschrift,’ this 
will be recognized as a valuable improvement. It may, how- 
ever, be worth reminding some readers that in the case of 
many Sanskrit words the accent cannot be determined either 
by rule or by authority, and that this is why many remain 
unmarked. 


Vili : TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 


It is perhaps superfluous, but it is at least permissible, that 
we should express our sense of the heavy loss which Greek 
scholarship has sustained in the recent and all too early 
death of the distinguished author. of this work. In recent 
years his position was somewhat a conservative one, and he 
was then conspicuous more for the cautious criticism which 
he directed upon what he regarded as premature theorising, 
than for brilliant contributions of his own to Comparative 
Philology. But although he was unable to admit that the 
whole field of language had as yet been shown to be under 
the rigorous rule of mechanical law, it must never be forgotten 
that, as even his critics admit, no man, with the possible 
exception of Pott, did more in his earlier days to extend the 
domain of phonetic laws, and to bring the exceptions which 
he felt constrained to allow, within the sphere of general 
principles. The genius of Curtius was by no means solely 
critical. Where his subject called for it, as especially in his 
suggestive essay ‘Zur Chronologie der Indogermanischen 
Sprachforschung, he showed himself capable of the most - 
brilliant theories.” But he was still more at home in the sober 
and judicial estimation of the theories of others. With a 
never-failing sense of the historical developement of the Greek 
language, and an extensive knowledge of its literature at 
different stages, he united a singular candour, and an unbiassed 
love of truth. It is perhaps only those whose duty has led 
them, as it has led us, to spend many months, and even years, 
on the careful and repeated examination of his different works 
in their various editions, who can fully realise his constant 
desire to collect from every quarter, and to. weigh with scru- 
pulous care, every scrap of evidence, telling either in favour of 
or against a theory, whether his own or that of a rival, and the 
readiness with which he abandoned views long advocated, if 
the weight of argument seemed at last to turn against them. 
It was only natural that such qualities should be accompanied 
by a courteous dignity in controversy, which though always 
loyal to the truth, yet never willingly wounded an opponent. 


TRANSLATORS PREFACE. 1x 


Of his personal character we need only add that it fully 
bore out that impression of a single-minded devotion to that 
which was true and right, which cannot but be derived from 
his intellectual work. 

The pages of the German fifth edition are given in the 
margin. It is to these marginal pages that reference is made 
both in the indexes and in the body of the work. 

We desire to acknowledge the remarkable care and accuracy 
with which a book, making unusual demands upon both, has 
been printed by the Oxford University Press. 


MANCHESTER: Christmas 1885. 


AUTHOR’S PREFACE. 


To ascertain what results have been clearly established by 
the science of Comparative Philology bearing on Greek Ety- 
mology, apart from airy surmisings and absurd methods of 
investigation, has appeared to me for several reasons a useful 
undertaking. The Science of Language presents no subject 
so tempting, none that so invites to unwearying research, as 
the unsurpassable language of the Greeks, which has developed 
so richly and characteristically from its primitive foundation : 
but, to avoid error in the research, there is need for constant 
converse with that familiar knowledge of the Greek language 
and its records, which, inherited from Antiquity and the 
object of close and careful study in our own century, we call 
in Germany by the special name of Philology. On the other 
hand Classical Philology, with the wider range which it has 
now won for itself, asks a thousand questions about the 
descent and original meaning of Greek words, and about the 
history of the ideas and conceptions which they present, 
questions which can only be answered outside its own pro- 
vince, by the science of Comparative Philology. The more 
lively the activity now reigning in the last-named science, 
the more attention there is paid by Classical Philology on 
its side to the information to be gained from this science, so- 
much the greater will be the advantage to be obtained by 
promoting a profitable commerce between the two movements 
in this very province. . 

Without doubt this is a difficult undertaking. Com- 
parative Philologists have been called not without a sneer 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE, xi 


‘Cireumnavigators of the World,’ a title which they might 
be content to accept, were it not unseemly to call by the 
name of ‘world’ that Indo-Germanic realm with which we 
have here to do, and which is after all so very small a part 
of the region of human speech. Who is to restrict exploration 
to familiar coasting-voyages? Even here there is most cer- 
tainly no lack of danger. It is on the rocks and shallows 
near the land that most ships are wrecked, while it is only 
on the high seas that navigation has reached its fuller de- 
velopement. 

But the bolder the course, the more do we need points 
of view to guide us. Therefore I have thought it needful 
above all things in attempting what I have, to subject the 
first principles and the methods of Comparative Etymology 
in its application to the Greek language, to a searching 
discussion. Not that I intended to exhaust the subject 
systematically, once for all, but, adjusting myself to the 
present attitude of the study, to handle a series of questions 
of fundamental importance, and by so doing to establish a 
fixed standard of procedure for the treatment of details which 
is to follow. These are the ends served by the First Book of 
this work. 

Next I took as my task the synoptical enumeration of 
those Greek words and families of words for which undoubted 
affinities could be found in the kindred languages, along with 
the words so related. If I have erred in judging of the 
connexion of words, I believe it has been on the side of 
caution. Adhering firmly to the principle, that it is better 
to forbear to connect what may be unrelated, than to connect 
it too hastily, and that a limited number of sure comparisons 
has far more value than an abundance of uncertain conjectures, 
I have not shrunk from repeated scrutiny in each single 
instance. My matter however fell naturally into two parts. 
Since every trustworthy inquiry must start with the sound 
rather than the sense, a division naturally resulted between 
the regular or constant representation of sounds and that 


X1ll AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 


which is irregular or sporadic. Accordingly the Second Book 
treats of Regular Representation of Sounds. Its form is that 
of an index arranged phonetically. 

In the treatment of the several families of words I have 
endeavoured to state the facts of the case as clearly, and at 
the same time as concisely as possible. I have therefore 
given in all cases none but the most important members, 
though I did not like to omit the translation even of the 
Greek words. By its addition many readers are saved the 
trouble of searching for rare words in the dictionary, and 
even when the words are common, the translation of them 
has been a short and concise means of calling attention not 
only to the prominent meaning, but also to noteworthy coin- 
cidences and differences in the other languages, and this 
practice has for consistency’s sake been maintained even 
in the absence of such special reasons. I think that a hint 
here and there, which may possibly be superfluous, does less 
harm in these inquiries than that doctum silentiwm which 
gives rise to many misconceptions, especially as this book 
may chance to be used by some who are not so well versed 
in Greek as classical scholars are, though perhaps all the 
more at home in other languages. 

In the search for the Greek words which belong to the 
same group I have derived much assistance from Niz’s small 
‘Etymologisches Worterbuch’ (second edition, by I. Bekker, 
Berlin 1821). In this unpretentious little book, which has 
received too little attention, there is more etymological insight 
than in all our dictionaries, excellent though ‘they are in 
other respects. Of Greek grammarians and lexicographers I 
have most frequently referred to Hesychius, whose statements 
have in very many instances been confirmed by inscriptions 
of recent discovery. JI have however carefully avoided in- 
dulging in guesses at isolated etymological puzzles, and have 
only occasionally noticed proper names. 

In giving the words from the other languages I have 
bestowed great care on the accuracy of their appended trans- 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE, Xi 


lations. Hence I have generally followed my authorities in 
using the language in which the meaning is there given. In 
the case of the Church-Slavonic and Gothic words I have 
often added the Greek words to which they serve as a 
translation. This not unfrequently makes the correspond- 
ence still more striking. 

To each group of connected words I have added a short 
commentary; and in so doing I have thought it necessary 
in the first place to give the history of each etymology more 
fully than has been done hitherto. The literature of ety- 
mology has often been unduly neglected. The sanctity of 
intellectual property, and the continuity so desirable in scien- 
tific investigation, both demand, I think, greater care in this 
direction. Accordingly, though I cannot vouch for absolute 
completeness, and have omitted to notice attempts which are 
clearly fantastic and unmethodical — and of these there are 
too many even in our days —I have faithfully recorded the 
contributions of my predecessors. Still etymologies of the 
old sort are only mentioned occasionally, whenever they give 
occasion for decided approval or condemnation, or acquire 
importance from the names of their authors, e. g. Buttmann, 
Lobeck, or Doederlein. These references to other authors are 
as a rule followed by short notes of agreement or criticism, or 
explanation and extension. The compressed brevity of these 
remarks in the style of critical notes may find an excuse 
in my desire to confine the work within reasonable limits. 
Whoever takes the trouble to read these brief notes will per- 
ceive from them that the conclusions given in the text have 
often been arrived at after much painstaking deliberation, 
and will acquit me at all events of having jumped at them 
thoughtlessly. I hope too that by giving the grounds of my 
comparisons I shall facilitate the refutation of my errors, 
and at the same time stimulate the discussion of difficult 
questions; and there are very many cases in which fuller 
discussion is needed. 

The annexed tables (pp. 125-129, marginal pages) of the 


X1V AUTHOR'S PREFACE. 


regular representation of sounds and the transcription of 
several alphabets are intended to enable any one who desires 
to enter on these questions, to use and test this book. A know- 
ledge of Sanskrit or of any other of the kindred languages, 
except the two classic ones, is by no means necessary to the 
formation of a judgement on the subjects here discussed. Who- 
ever will believe me that the Indian, Slavonic, or Lithuanian 
words quoted are given conscientiously, in form and meaning, 
is perfectly able to judge of the soundness of each comparison. 
And such a readiness to accept much on trust is in other 
branches of philology as necessary as it is safe. If we credit 
the epigraphist with correctness in copying an inscription, 
the editor of a text with the accuracy of his various readings, 
if we accept the measurements and descriptions of the topo- 
grapher, linguistic scholars can in their turn demand that 
their statements shall not be discredited without good reason. 
Error is inevitable in all circumstances, and therefore even 
statements of fact need constant revision. But division of 
labour and attention to the discoveries and diligent compila- 
tions of others can never be dispensed with. 

The Third Book, which is devoted to the sporadic repre- 
sentation of sounds, since it endeavours to demonstrate rarer 
phonetic changes, assumes naturally more the character of an 
investigation. I felt myself more bound here not only to 
state my own views, but to explain my reasons more fully. 


PREFACE TO THE FIFTH EDITION. 


WHEN I found that there was a demand for a fifth edition 
of this book, I made up my mind that this time a more 
thorough revision of the work would be needed than on 
former occasions. In each of the former editions the changes 
were limited to a few corrections and improvements, and in 
particular the difference between the third and fourth edition 
was, if we exclude Windisch’s welcome contributions from 
Keltic, immaterial. 

For the fifth edition I have examined and used such por- 
tions of the rapidly increasing literature of Comparative 
Philology as seemed likely to be of service to me. I have 
been glad to learn, whenever what was new convinced me; 
I have subjected a large number of questions of detail to a 
fresh examination, and have suppressed many rash conjectures, 
more particularly such as had no direct bearing on Greek, 
though at the same time I have adopted much that is new, 
and tried to make the old in parts more convincing and more 
intelligible. Consequently the difference between this edition 
and its predecessors is very considerable, though at the same 
time its objects and arrangement remain the same. It will 
be hard to find a page which does not contain some 
alteration. 

I have taken the greatest care however to prevent the 
book, which was large enough already, from becoming larger, 
and have almost always made room for the necessary additions 
by omitting all that could now be spared, by studying to be 
concise in expression and compact in form. From the second 


XV1 AUTHORS PREFACE (TO THE FIFTH EDITION). 


part especially I have omitted many polemical discussions of 
particular points for which I found the space at my command 
insufficient. No one will I hope regret that I have been more 
consistent than before in passing over in silence views which 
seemed to me decidedly mistaken, and have in general limited 
the number of references. The literature of etymological in- 
terpretations has been most diligently collected by my friend 
Vanitek in his ‘ Griechisch-Lateinisches Etymologisches Wor- 
terbuch.’ To show, however, that I am not always at a loss 
for the means of defending those of my views which have been 
attacked, I have treated at somewhat greater length in the 
Third Book some controverted points of especial interest. In 
this connexion I may refer particularly for example to what I 
have there said on pp. 513-520 (marginal pages) on Oeds, on 
pp. 602 f. on os, on pp. 604 ff. on imme and tewar, and on pp. 
613 f. on &youpos. 

The additions which have given me the greatest satisfaction 
are those due to the discovery of inscriptions; for there we 
have the refreshing substitution of facts for theories. Recent 
years have revealed a large amount of matter of this kind, 
which was of great interest and importance for the discussions 
in this work. By the kind communications of my brother 
Ernst, I have been enabled to make the earliest possible use 
of many such discoveries. 

The results of Ascoli’s and Fick’s investigations on the two 
kinds of gutturals demanded—though I did not feel compelled 
to alter altogether my previous arrangement—certain addi- 
tions and important alterations in the Introduction, and in 
such articles in the Second Book as this question concerned. 
In the section dealing with the ramifications of the Indo- 
Germanic languages, reference had to be made to the con- 
troversies raised by Joh. Schmidt and, if I mistake not, in a 
certain sense settled by A. Leskien, and particularly now to 
Hiibschmann’s work on the Armenian language. On the 
other hand, I have not felt 1t my duty to do more than occa- 
sionally refer (e.g. on pp. 91 ff., p. 642) to the question, now 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE (TO THE FIFTH EDITION). XVli 


so much discussed, though so far from settled, of the chro- 
nology of the vowel-system and all that belongs to it. 

It is in the Third Book that the greatest alterations have 
been made. The credibility of the kind~of phonetic change 
here dealt with—i. e. the irregular or sporadic—has been un- 
reservedly impeached. I have therefore been obliged, in order 
to defend my position, which the doubts thus expressed have 
not shaken, to insert a long passage (pp. 426-438) in which I 
have striven to take as objective a view as possible, and to 
confront with a series of unassailable and for the most part 
generally recognized facts, the scholars whose youthful zeal 
has, as I believe, led them to assert too positively the regu- 
larity of phonetic change. I believe that Iam by no means 
alone in holding that if we are to reach that truth which we 
are all of us seeking, it must be by the unprejudiced con- 
sideration of carefully investigated particulars, and not by 
the help of a few principles barely stated and not proved, 
and I have done my best to show that this is a point 
of view which is perfectly reconcileable with reasonable views 
of language and its history.—In the doctrine of the digamma 
I have entered with more minuteness than formerly into the 
authorities for the actual existence of this sound, and the 
- Homeric questions raised by Hartel’s valuable investigations. 
—I have thought it to be specially incumbent on me to sub- 
ject the section on the y, and the effects left by it in Greek, to 
a searching scrutiny, and impartially to review afresh the ob- 
jections made to it. On some points, as, e. g. on the conjecture 
—which I never expressed without hesitation—that in Latin 
too d is occasionally the successor to a 7, | have given way. 
In one important question, that of the priority of the oa to 
the 77, I have accepted the results of Ascoli’s acute investiga- 
tions (p. 666 ff.), and I have now within a limited circle of 
phenomena to explain the origin of the 6 from the 7 somewhat 
differently than before, while endeavouring on the other hand 
more firmly to establish the main points of my theory, to re- 
fute opposition, and by the help of a more concise exposition 

VOL, I. b 


XVili_  AUTHOR’S PREFACE (TO THE FIFTH EDITION). 


(pp. 658-61) to render the statement of my views more con- 
vincing to my readers. | 

The most neglected side of Etymology is still that of the 
doctrine of meaning, the very side which lies nearest to special 
classical students. To trace the use of a word, or a family of 
words, historically through one language, or again, to arrive 
at points of view for a wider consideration of the changes of 
meaning, these are tasks to which, apparently, the present — 
generation feels little drawn. The path in which Tycho 
Mommsen has, in his investigation of an important part of — 
speech in Greek, shown himself such an admirable pioneer, — 
has been left almost untrodden by others. I cordially wel- 
come however in Heinrich Schmidt's ‘Griechische Synonymik,’ 
a work of kindred though not identical aims with this, and 
from the first two volumes of this stimulating book, which I 
have read more diligently than I have quoted it, I have de- 
rived much aid}. | 

My dear friend and colleague, Ernst Windisch, has not 
only revised and added to his contributions from the Keltic 
languages, but has helped me in other departments as well, 
particularly with the Sanskrit words, by many useful hints 
and recommendations. His active aid in the revision of the 
book, which extended even to correcting the proof-sheets, 
has been most valuable to me. To Ascoli I am indebted, not 
only for the information to be gained from his published 
works on special questions of Romance Philology (ep. p. 624), 
but also for important communications by letter; and I also 
received on asking, most readily granted information from 
Hiibschmann on Iranian forms and sounds, and from Deffner 
(of Athens) on Modern Greek. Herr Dr. Alex. Briickner (of 
Lemberg) has had the-kindness to point out to me such of 
the Lithuanian words given by me, as his lately published in- 
vestigations (‘Die Slavischen Fremdworter im Litauischen ’ 

1 I have only just heard of Fritz Bechtel’s work ‘Ueber die Be- 


zeichnungen der sinnlichen Wahrnehmungen in den indogermanischen 
Sprachen, Ein Beitrag zur Bedeutungsgeschichte’ Weimar 1879. 


AUTHOR'S PREFACE (TO THE FIFTH EDITION). xix 


Weimar 1877) show to have been borrowed from Slavonic, 
and which may therefore be omitted from my list. Vanitek, 
now Director of the Gymnasium in Neuhaus (Bohemia), again 
undertook at my request the reading of the proof-sheets and 
the verification of the indexes, and made use of this oppor- 
tunity to call my attention to many out-of-the-way corners of 
etymological literature, of which he possesses such a rare 
knowledge, and also to some minor contradictions and in- 
equalities in the book. For all this help I express to the 
above-mentioned scholars my hearty thanks. 
GEORG CURTIUS. 
Lerpzia, March, 1879. 


NOTE ON THE CELTIC COMPARISONS. 


The contributions from the Celtic languages, first added in 
the fourth edition, have for this fifth edition been considered 
afresh, emended and supplemented by others, where I thought 
necessary. In this respect I have derived most valuable aid 
from the searching criticism of Whitley Stokes, which first 
appeared as ‘Some Remarks on the Celtic Additions to 
Curtius’s Greek Etymology’ Calcutta 1874; then as ‘Re- 
marks on the Celtic Additions to Curtius’s Greek Etymology, 
and on the Celtic Comparisons in Bopp’s Comparative 
Grammar, ete. Calcutta 1875, and were then in the main re- 
printed in the ‘ Beitrage zur Vergleichenden Sprachforschung ’ 
villi. 301-355. As these criticisms, with all their numerous 
details, are easily accessible, I have thought it lawful to pass 
over here unnoticed all that seemed to me to go too far, to be 
not clearly proved, or mistaken, all the more so that the plan 
of this work does not admit of a large use of Celtic com- 
parisons. It is only in very few cases that I have had to 
strike out a number of the fourth edition altogether, though 
many numbers bear a changed appearance owing to a different 

b 2 


XX AUTHOR’S PREFACE (TO THE FIFTH EDITION). 


choice of forms to represent it, and I have been able to add 
many new ones. Roughly speaking, Celtic is represented in 
about 250 numbers in the text, and noticed in the notes to 
about eighty or ninety more. I have not been so careful as 
in the fourth edition to cite the passages from which the in- 
dividual words were taken, as this, especially in the case of 
words in frequent use, seemed to me unnecessary; the main 
source from which they are drawn is still the ‘Grammatica 
Celtica’ of J. C. Zeuss (Editio altera, curavit H. Ebel, Berlin 
1871). I may refer now too in general to Ebel’s etymological 
collections in vol. i. of the ‘Beitraige zur Vergleichenden 
Sprachforschung, as no special reference is made to them 
where the word is generally known. 


ERNST WINDISCH. 
Lerpzia, March, 1879. 


LIST OF 


THE MORE IMPORTANT ABBREVIATIONS. 


Maron banth.: <2. |. 


Ascoli Krit. Stud. 


Aufr. and Kirch. .. . 


Books of the Iliad. 
Books of the Odyssey. 
‘De dialectis aeolicis et pseudaeolicis scr. H. L. 
Ahrens.’ Gottingae 1839. 
‘De dialecto dorica scr. H. L. Ahrens.’ Gott. 
1843. 
‘Lezioni di Fonologia comparata da G. I. As- 
coli. Torino e Firenze 1870. 


The same (Translated into German by Bazzigher 
and Schweizer-Sidler, Halle 1872). 


. ‘Kritische Studien zur Sprachwissenschaft.’ 


Authorised translation by R. Merzdorf and 
B. Mangold. Weimar 1878. 


‘Die umbrischen Sprachdenkmialer. Ein Ver- 
such zur Deutung derselben von Aufrecht 
und Kirchhoff.’ Berlin 1849, 1851. 


‘ Beitrage zur vergleichenden Sprachforschung 
auf dem Gebiete der arischen, celtischen und 
slawischen Sprachen, herausgegeben von 
Kuhn und Schleicher.’ Berlin 1858-1876. 
8 vols. | 


. *Homerische Blatter von Immanuel Bekker,’ 


Bonn 1863, 1872. 


‘Benfey’s griechisches Wurzellexikon. Berlin 
1839, 1842. 


. ‘Beitrige zur Kunde der indogermanischen 


Sprachen. Gottingen 1877 ff. 


Bopp’s ‘Glossarium comparativum linguae 
Sanscritae,’ ed. tertia. Berol. 1867. 


XXll 
Bopp Vgl. Gr. 


Bréal Tabl. Eugub. . . 


Briicke Grundz. 


Brugman Problem . . 


Oauer Del’ a2. sae ice 


Cristie oe ee aie 


Clemm Comp...... 


orm As % pets eel 


Corm. Gl. Transl.. . 


Corssen Beitr... ... 


Corssen Nachtr.. . . 


Corson 7,405 see 


Corssen Ital. Sprachk. 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


. ‘Vergleichende Grammatik von Franz Bopp.’ 


2 Ausgabe. Berl. 1857-61. 


‘Les tables Eugubines par Michel Bréal.’ Paris 
1875. 


. ‘Grundziige der Physiologie u. Systematik der 


Sprachlaute von Ernst Briicke. Second ed. 
Vienna 1876. 

‘Kin Problem der Homerischen Textkritik und 
der vergleichenden Sprachwissenschaft von 
K. Brugman. L. 1876. 

‘Delectus inscriptionum propter dialectum me- 
morabilium comp. Paulus Cauer.’ L. 1877. 


‘Grundziige der griechischen Lautlehre von 
Wilh. Christ.’ L. 1859. 


‘Corpus Inscriptionum Atticarum.’ Vol. i. 
Berol. 1873. 


‘Corpus Inscriptionum Graecarum.’ 


‘Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum.’ Vol. i. 
Berol. 1863. 


‘De compositis graecis quae a verbis incipiunt 
scr. V. Clemm.’ Gissae 1867. 


. ‘Cormac’s Glossary in “ Three Irish Glossaries, 


with a Preface and Index” by Wh. Stokes.’ 
London 1862. 


. ‘Cormac’s Glossary translated and annotated 


by the late John O'Donovan, ed. with Notes 
and Indices by Whitley Stokes.’ Calcutta 
1868. 


‘Kritische Beitrage zur lateinischen Formen- 
lehre von W. Corssen.’ LL. 1863. 


. ‘Kritische Nachtrige zur lateinischen Formen- 


lehre von W. Corssen.’ LL. 1866. 


‘Ueber Aussprache, Vocalismus und Betonung 
der lateinischen Sprache von W. Corssen.’ 
Zweite Auflage. L. 1868, 70. 


‘Beitrige zur Italischen Sprachkunde.’ L. 
1876, 


Delbriick Verb... . . 


Fick Indogerm. 
Europa’s 


Fulda Unters... . 


Grassmann Wtb... . 


Grimm Gesch. 


ABBREVIATIONS. XX1ll 


‘Das altindische Verbum von B. Delbriick.’ 
Halle 1874. 


‘Vergleichendes Worterbuch der gothischen 
Sprache.’ Frankfurt a. M. 1851. 


‘Homerisches Glossarium von Ludw. Déder- 
lein.’ Erlangen 1850-58. 


‘Etymologicum Magnum, recens. Thomas Gais- 
ford.” Ox. 1848. 


‘Vergleichendes Worterbuch der  indoger- 
manischen Sprachen von August Fick,’ 
Third edition revised, 4 vols. Gott. 1874— 
1876. 


. ‘Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indoger- 


manen Europa’s von Aug. Fick.’ Gott. 
1873. 


‘Untersuchungen iiber die homerischen Ge- 
dichte von Albert Fulda.’ Duisburg 1865. 

‘Goidelica. Old and LEarly-Middle-Irish 
Glosses, Prose and Verse, ed. by Wh. Stokes. 
Second ed. Lond. 1872. 


‘Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda von Hermann 
Grassmann,’ L, 1873. 


. ‘Geschichte der deutschen Sprache von Jacob 


Grimm.’ L. 1848. 


‘Kulturpflanzen und Hausthiere in ihrem 
Uebergang aus Asien nach Griechenland u. 
Italien, sowie in das tibrige Europa v. Vic- 
tor Hehn.’ Thirded. Berlin 1877. (Trans- 
lated into English and abridged by J. S; 
Stallybrass. Lond. 1885.) 

‘Hesychii Lexicon ed. M. Schmidt. Jena 
1858-62. 

‘Trish Glosses, a Mediaeval Tract on Latin 
Declension with examples explained in Irish, 
ed. by Wh. Stokes. Dublin 1860. 

‘Handbuch der Zendsprache von Ferd. Justi.’ 
L. 1864. 


Leo Meyer Goth... . 


Max Miller. .... 


Mommsen U. D. . . 


Morphol. Unters... . 


ABBREVIATIONS. 


‘De digammo MHomerico quaestiones, scr. 
Claus Knés.’ Upsala 1872-78. 


_ © Altindische Nominalbildung von Bruno Lind- 


ner. Jena 1878. 


‘Lea bhar na huidhri.’ A Collection of Pieces 
in the Irish Language. Dublin 1870. 


‘Vergleichende Grammatik der griechischen 
und lateinischen Sprache von Leo Meyer.’ 
Berlin 1861, 65. 


‘Die gothische Sprache, von Leo Meyer.’ Ber- 
lin 1869. 


‘Lectures on the Science of Language by Max 
Miller” 2 vols. Lond. 1861, 1864. 

‘Mémoires de la Société de Linguistique.’ 
Paris 1868, etc. 


‘Lexicon Palaeoslovenico - Graeco - Latinum, 


emendatum, auctum ed. Fr. Miklosich.’ 
Vindob. 1862-1865. 


. ‘Die unteritalischen Dialekte von Theod. 


Mommsen.’ L. 1850. 


‘Morphologische Untersuchungen von Herm. 
Osthoff und K. Brugman.’ Part I. Leipz. 
1878. 


‘O’Davoren’s Glossary in “Three Irish Glos- 
saries.”’ See Corm. Gl. 


. . ‘Forschungen im Gebiete der indog. nomina- 


len Stammbildung.’ 2 parts. Jena 1875, 
76. 

‘Pauli Epitome Festi,’ by O. Miiller’s pages in 
his edition of Festus (L. 1839). 

‘Sanskritworterbuch, herausgegeben von der 
kaiserl. Akademie der Wissenschaften, bear- 
beitet von O. Bohtlingk und Rud. Roth.’ 
Petersb. 1855-75, 7 vols. 


‘Les Origines Indoeuropéennes ou les Aryas 
primitifs. Paris 1859, 63. (Second ed. 
Paris 1877, 3 vols.) 


i 


Scherer Gesch. d. d. 
Spr. 


Schleich. Comp 


Heinr. Schmidt Synon. 
Joh. Schmidt Voc. . . 
Sievers Lautphysiol. . 


Sprachw. Abh. .... 


Prtierien oa tee dh. 


Van. Fremdw. 


Oho AMES > aa a 


ABBREVIATIONS. XXV 


‘Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete 
der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen von Aug. 
Friedr. Pott.’ Lemgo 1833, 36. 


Second edition of the same work. Lemgo 
1859, 61. 


‘Wurzelworterbuch der Indogermanischen 
Sprachen.’ Detmold 1867-73. 


. ‘Zar Geschichte der deutschen Sprache von 


Wilh. Scherer.’ Berlin 1868, Second ed. 1878. 


. ‘Compendium der vergleichenden Grammatik 


der indogermanischen Sprachen von Aug. 
Schleicher. Dritte Auflage. Weimar 1871 


‘Formenlehre der kirchenslawischen Sprache 
von Aug. Schleicher. Bonn 1852. 


‘ Handbuch der litauischen Sprache von August 
Schleicher.’ Prag. 1856, 1857. 


‘Synonymik der griechischen Sprache von Dr. 
Heinrich Schmidt.’ L. 1876, 1878. 


‘Zur Geschichte des indogermanischen Vocalis- 
mus. 2 parts. Weimar 1871, 1875. 


‘Grundziige der Lautphysiologie von Ed. Sie- 
vers. L, 1876. , 


‘Sprachwissenschaftliche Abhandlungen, her- 
vorgegangen aus G. C.’s grammatischer 
Gesellschaft.’ L. 1874. 


‘Studien zur griechischen und _lateinischen 
Grammatik, herausgegeben von Georg Cur- 
tius. 10 vols. Leipzig 1868-1878. 


‘Griechisch-Lateinisches etymologisches Wor- 
terbuch von Alois Vanféek.’ 2 vols. L. 
1870 


. ‘Fremdworter des Griechischen und Lateini- 


schen. L. 1878. 


‘The Greek Verb in its structure and develope- 
ment, by Georg Curtius, translated by Wil- 
kins and England.’ London 1880. 


XXVI1 ABBREVIATIONS. 


Weber Et. Unters. . . ‘ Etymologische Untersuchungen von Dr. Hugo 
Weber. I’ Halle 1861. 

Windisch Auslautges. ‘Die irischen Auslautgesetze’ in ‘Paul und 
Braune’s Beitriige zur Geschichte der deut- 
schen Sprache und Litteratur ITI,’ p. 204 ff. 


Windisch Kurzgef.. . ‘ Kurzgefasste Irische Grammatik mit Lese- 


Ir. Gr. stiicken von Ernst Windisch.’ L. 1879. 
aR re Sp) ae ates ‘Grammatica Celtica, construxit J. C. Zeuss.’ 
Editio altera. Curavit H. Ebel. Berlin 
1871. 


Zacher nom. in aws. . ‘De nominibus Graecis in aos ava aov scrips. 
Konr. Zacher.’ Strassb. 1876. 

Zitachy, 7. cacy es ee ‘ Zeitschrift fiir vergleichende Sprachforschung 
herausgegeben von Adalb. Kuhn.’ Berlin 
1852 ff. 


LIST OF 
SOME BOOKS BEARING ON GREEK ETYMOLOGY 


PUBLISHED SINCE THE LAST GERMAN EDITION. 


‘American Journal of Philology,’ vols. i- . Baltimore, 1880 ff. 

Baunack, J. and 'T., ‘Die Inschrift von Gortyn. Leipzig, 1885. 

Bezzenberger, F’.,‘Beitriige zur Kunde der indogermanischen Sprachen,’ 
vols. v-ix. Gottingen, 1880 ff. 

Brugman, K., and Osthoff, H., ‘ Morphologische Untersuchungen, 
parts i-iv. Leipzig, 1879-1881. 

Brugman, K., ‘ Zum Heutigen Stand der Sprachwissenschaft.’ Strass- 
burg, 1885. 

Brugman, K., ‘Griechische Grammatik’ (in Dr. Iwan Miiller’s 
‘Handbuch der Klassischen Alterthumswissenschaft’). Nord- 
lingen, 1885. 

Collitz, H., ‘Sammlung der griechischen Dialekt-Inschriften,’ vol. 1. 
Gottingen, 1883-1885. 

Curtius, G., ‘Zur Kritik der neuesten Sprachforschung.’ Leipzig, 1885. 

Delbriick, B., ‘Einleitung in das Sprachstudium, 2 Aufl. Leipzig, 
1884 (a translation of the first edition, ‘Introduction to the 
Study of Language,’ 1882). 

Delbriick, B., ‘ Die neueste Sprachforschung.’ Leipzig, 1885. 

De Saussure, F'., ‘Mémoire sur le systéme primitif des voyelles dans 
les langues indo-européennes.’ Leipsic, 1879. 

Meistér, R., Die griechischen Dialekte auf Grundlage von Ahrens’ 
Werk ‘De Graecae Linguae dialectis’ dargestellt, vol. 1. 
Gottingen, 1882. 

Meyer Gustav, ‘Griechische Grammatik.’ Leipzig, 1880. 

Meyer Leo, ‘ Vergleichende Grammatik der griech. und lat. Sprache,’ 
2nd edition. Berlin, 1882-1884. 

Osthoff, H., ‘Zur Geschichte des Perfects im Indogermanischen mit 
besondrer Riicksicht auf Griechisch und Lateinisch.’ Strassburg, 
1884. 


XXVIll LIST OF BOOKS ON ETYMOLOGY. 


Paul, H., and Braune, W., ‘ Beitriige zur Geschichte der deutschen 
Sprache und Litteratur, 10 vols. Halle, 1873 ff. 

Paul, H., ‘ Principien der Sprachgeschichte.’ Strassburg, 1880. 

Pezzi, D., ‘Aryan Philology,’ translated by E. 8. Roberts. London, 
1879. 

Schrader, O., ‘Sprachvergleichung und Urgeschichte. Jena, 1883. 

Techmer F., ‘Internationale Zeitschrift fiir allgemeine Sprachwissen- 
schaft.’ Leipzig, 1884. 

Wharton, E. R., ‘Etyma Graeca.’ London, 1882. 

Ziemer, ‘ Junggrammatische Streifziige, 2 Aufl., 1883. 


TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


BOOK I. INTRODUCTION. 


PRINCIPLES AND MAIN QUESTIONS OF GREEK ErymoLoey (pp. 1-152). 


15. 
16. 


. Conception and limits of Ktymology: Etymology 


in Antiquity 


. Modern Etymology up to fhe at of Tobece a 


Doderlein . 


. Philipp Buttmann . 
. Stand-point of Comparative pielolees : 
. Significance of Sanskrit ; misconceptions in the 


employment of it; significance of other related 
languages 


. Mistaken analyses ; the teh fae 
. Necessary limitation ; conception of the Ley 


general views shen the Greek roots ; internal 
changes ; variation of roots 


. Extension of the roots by addition Fi the ad 


(expansion) 


. Premature identification of frat aia 
. Under-estimation and over-estimation of equi- 


valence of meaning 


. The Indo-Germanic sounds: the Greek system of 


sounds, compared with that of the related languages 


. Necessity of a doctrine of meanings ; 
. General course of the developement of meanings, 


shown by illustrative examples 


. Assistance in the eR of the fonda mented 


meaning : 

Analogies for the Meche of meanings 

Etymology of rare words, and of proper names ; 
mythological etymology 


PAGES 
1-7 
7-16 


16-19 
19-27 


27-33 


33-45 


45-65 


66-79 
79-86 


86-91 


91-108 
108-111 


111-119 


119-128 
128-133 


133-140 


XXX TABLE OF CONTENTS. 


BOOK II. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SounpDs (pp. 141-490). 
a. Transliteration of the Sanskrit, Zend, and Cyrillic 
Alphabets 
Lithuanian and Irish Bieter 
b. Table of the Regular Representation of Somias in 
Sanskrit, Zend, Greek, Italian, Teutonic, Church- 
Slavonic, Lithuanian, and Old Irish 


“HM P UZEAeBMDHORPH MAR 


Spiritus asper for initial s 
Spiritus asper for 7. 
Vowels . 


PAGES 


143-144 
144-145 


146-147 
148-197 
197-222 
222-242 
243-272 
272-298 
298-315 
315-349 
349-351 
351-368 
368-389 
389-410 
410-431 
431-455 
455-465 
465-467 
467-476 
476-481 
481-483 
483-490 


BOOK L INTRODUCTION 


PRINCIPLES AND MAIN QUESTIONS 


OF 


GREEK ETYMOLOGY 


Ut somniorum interpretatio ita verborum origo pro cuiusque ingenio iudicatur. 
AUGUSTINUS. 


B O K I “ ANG f re i . | ares 
( ) S<Lino be 
INTRODUCTION. 


PRINCIPLES AND MAIN QUESTIONS OF GREEK ETYMOLOGY. 


ONE who takes in hand a science which has acquired, and 
deservedly acquired, such an ill repute as that of Etymology, 
has every reason for giving a strict account both to himself 
and his readers of the goal of his endeavours, and the paths 
he means to follow in its pursuit. If he omits to do this he 
will have no right to complain if he is reckoned among those 
who have in ancient and modern times brought the name of 
Etymology into discredit, or if, at all events, his attempts are 
received with the same distrust and incredulity which has 
consigned to oblivion so many attempts at Etymology for the 
most part as soon as they were made, only however that they 
might be incessantly replaced by fresh ones. For, in spite of 
doubt and ridicule, an imperative instinct drives us to trace 
the origin and mutual relation of words, or, as is so strikingly 
suggested by the name of our science, to fathom in words 76 
érvpov—the real—to find their own true and peculiar contents. 
Etymology has that perfection of charm which belongs to all 
sciences that deal with the birth and growth of great pro- 
ductions of Nature or the mind. But who can be blind to the 
fact that, side by side with the charm, there meets us the very 
greatest danger? On all sides it is only given to man’s 
sagacity to penetrate to a certain point. The earliest rise, 
the precise origin of that which it sees in rich variety before 
it, which it has the power to divide, to classify, and in its 
later developement to understand, is hidden from it. It 
approaches the problem only with the help of more or less 
probable hypotheses, which, however indispensable to science, 
are still far removed from the rigour of exact investigation 
and therefore lead readily to airy deductions. From the times 

B 


2 BOOK I. 


of Heraclitus, the Pythagoreans, and Plato, down to a very 
recent period, whatever has been surmised or written about 
the origin of language belongs to this world of hypothesis. 

4 Precisely in proportion to the immaturity of the science was 
the rashness with which men mounted from the stage at which 
language had arrived to its very first beginnings ; but the richer 
the material men began to have before them, the more carefully 
did they separate what can be known from what must always 

_ remain a problem, and contented themselves with a narrower 
circle of obvious truths. “ Man,” says W. von Humboldt 
(‘Ueber die Verschiedenheit des menschl. Sprachbaues,’ p. 
111), “seeks the connexion even of outward phenomena first 
in the realm of thought; the historical art always comes last; 
and simple observation and far more experiment, follow only 
at a great distance upon ideal and fanciful systems.’ W. von 
Humboldt was the first founder of the general study of lan- 
guage, which, based at once upon a deep insight into the 
nature of the human mind, and upon a comprehensive know- 
ledge of languages, was the means of quickening and guiding 
on all sides detailed investigations. The seeds sown by him 
have produced an abundant crop, and since, thanks especially 
to Steinthal’s various suggestive and valuable writings, the 
purely logical method has been distinctly replaced by the 
psychological, an antagonism can hardly be said to exist 
between an empirical method on the one hand and a philo- 
sophical on the other. The etymologist too, as we shall see 
more clearly further on, must have formed a well-grounded 
conception of the nature of language in general, or he will be 
met by many problems with regard to details which he will 
be unable to solve. The science of language, in its swift 
and sure progressive developement, assumes more and more 
the form of a vast whole. Even the worker in but one of 
its fields ought to be conscious of this continuity. Luckily 
there is no lack of works combining special research with 
universality of view. Among the first of these will rank 
Max Miiller’s able ‘ Lectures on the Science of Language,’ by 
the side of which may now be placed the American William 
Dwight Whitney's ‘ Language and the Study of Language, 
a work distinguished by severe sobriety of judgement. 


INTRODUCTION, 3 


In the face of the violent revolution that the Science of 
Language has within our own time gone through, we can 
hardly propose to enter minutely into the history of Etymo- 
logy in general, or, what is nearly the same thing, that of 
Greek Etymology in particular. The aberrations are so 
immense and so complex, that it really requires a special 
historical interest to tarry and search for the thread that still 5 
doubtless runs through the maze. But a brief glance at the 
leading etymological tendencies, both in older and in later 
times, may possibly be all the more instructive for us as we 
are warned thereby of many dangers that threaten us on our 
own. path. 

Who first used the well-chosen name érvpodoyfa we are 
not told. Still the first part of the word points to Ionia, for 
the word érupos is foreign to Attic prose, and is used by Plato 
(‘ Pheedr.’ p. 260 e) only in a quotation. It probably occurred 
in the works of those Ionian philosophers whom Plato attacks 
in his Cratylus. It was no boon to Etymology that the study 
was first started in a quarter, which, however far removed 
from the trained pursuit of a real study of language, was still 
able, owing to the respect gained from other sources, to 
procure for itself in this branch too no small consideration. 
Even Plato? has in his Cratylus, while furthering greatly the 
cause of Philosophy, and even of the Philosophy of Language, 
done but a poor service to Etymology. No one can doubt, 
after what has been written on this head latterly—from 
Schleiermacher down to Steinthal (‘Geschichte der Sprach- 
wissenschaft ’)—that Plato in this dialogue used his deriva- 
tions only as means to an end, specially as attempts to 
determine how far the assumption that words were givceu 
could be made good; and that it was precisely in these 
portions of the dialogue that he availed himself to the full of 


1 How remarkable is the just conjecture ventured by the great phi- 
losopher at p. 410a, of a possible connexion between Greek and 
Phrygian ; and that again which finds its expression at p. 425 e in the 
words «iol S¢ judy dapyadrepor BapBapor. But it is just these conjectures 
that were quite ignored by Antiquity. Weight is attached by Jac. 
Grimm (‘Ub. Etymologie und Sprachvergleichung,’ Ges. Schriften, i. 
30) to Plato’s derivation of the word dp from the Phrygian. 


B2 


A, BOOK I. 


- 


that irony with which he is so prone to spice his abstruse 
investigations. All the same he gave the impulse to the very 
worst kind of derivation. For as such we must consider that 
which leads the etymologist to seek in the word his pre- 
conceived idea of the thing. Since in this method of procedure 
the mind is as a rule wholly directed to the thing, no attention 
at all is for the most part paid to the peculiar conditions, rules, 
and laws of language. Notwithstanding, this style of deriva- 
tion has ever been the favourite one. Language is to confirm 
the results of our cogitation ; we are not willing to learn from 
it, but it is to learn from us. Lersch has shown, in the third 
volume of his ‘Sprachphilosophie der Alten’ (Bonn 1841), 
6 that even Aristotle allowed himself to be enticed into this 
path, when he, for example, derives (‘Eth. Nicom.’ v.7) dixacoy 
from diya, and (vil. 12) even paxdpioy from yaipev! But 
the later philosophers, and especially the Stoics, overstepped 
all bounds; not only were they fond of supporting their 
doctrines by the interpretation of words, but had also a 
complete theory of the kupiétns T@v d6voydrev or the similitudo 
ret cum sono verbi (Lersch, p. 47), in which, by way of a 
harmonizing principle, €vavri@ars or, as it is called later, avri- 
@paors found its place side by side with éuordrns and avadoyia. 
Although it would be an injustice to the originators of such 
principles’ to make them answerable for all the abuse to 


1 After Lobeck’s severe attack upon Antiphrasis (‘De Antiphrasi et 
Euphemismo,’ Acta Soc. Gr. ii), Déderlein tries (‘ Die Lateinische Wort- 
bildung,’ 19) to reinstate the principle of dvrippaors under the nathe of 
Enantiosemia, which he acknowledges to have borrowed from the 
strange work of Kanne, ‘De Vocabulorum Enantiosemia,’ Norimb. 
1819, tracing the opposed conceptions to one midway between the 
two. Compare Pott, ‘Etym. Forschungen,’ ii. 153 f.; L. Tobler, 
‘Zeitschr. f. Volkerpsych.’ i. 360; Max Miiller, ‘Lectures,’ 11. 248. That 
a remarkable revolution often occurs in the meaning of a word cannot 
be denied. But it is turning all science upside down, when, not con- 
tent with recognizing and further investigating what is startling and 
unexpected when clearly presented to us, we rather regard it as some- 
thing that is to be anticipated. 

[Yet Dr. Carl Abel has recently revived this theory in his doctrine 
of ‘Counter-sense:’ cp. ‘Ilchester Lectures’ (London, 1883), ‘Con- — 
temporary Review’ for April, 1884. Of the Greek and Latin de- 
rivations which he quotes to support his theories, it may be said 


INTRODUCTION, 5 


which they have been put,—and certainly for many startling 
assumptions an excuse can be found in the striving after 
some association by way of assisting the memory, without 
making a great point of the truth of the connexion—still 
this sort of thing is as unprofitable as can possibly be. 
It seems that the philosophers rather than the grammarians 
must bear the blame if Greek Etymology went so utterly 
astray that, for instance, Chrysippus could interpret the name 
Apollo as ovx? Trav TodrA@Y Kal hadtrA@V ovTLoY, 7) OTL pvos EaTl 
Kal ovxt mroAXoi (Macrob. i. 17). Another instance of the same 
tendency may be found in the derivation given in the ‘ E. M.’ 
p. 442 of Odvaros: mapa 7b dvev drns Tov TeOvedra civat. The 
masters of the Alexandrian school kept themselves tolerably 
clear of such caprices. Though not free from error, they yet 
went to work with caution and moderation, as is pointed out 
by Nauck (p. 268 f.), especially of Aristophanes of Byzantium. 
But after the érvpcdoyias etpeoirs (Dion. Thrax § 1) had 
become a part of ypapuparixy, the grammarians seem to have 
wished to engage in a contest of adroitness with the philoso- 
phers. Although, as is pointed out by Heinr. Kleist in his 
essay ‘De Philoxeni grammatici Alexandrini studiis etymo- 
logicis’ (Greifswald, 1865), Philoxenus originated, and suc- 
eeeded in establishing in long-lived repute, a kind of 
etymological system that was not devoid of acuteness; still 
the grossest caprice peeps out everywhere in the works of 
this inventor of the monosyllabic stem-verbs, such as 60, A, 
po, O. It is the same with the highly esteemed Herodian, 
as a glance at Aug. Lentz’s preface to his ‘ Herodian, 
p. xxiv ff. may now teach us. When the former derives 
padyetpos from dyelpw, and the latter explains ’AckAnmés as 
6 T& OKEAN Kal wav TO Copa vyles Tapéxwov Kal aveéduvov 
[#rvov], it is enough to turn us in disgust from any further 
inquiry into such tricks. Little by little this artificial and 
capricious system grew, and with its help pretty nearly 
anything could be derived from anything. It is truly in- 
structive, and can especially do good service as a warning 


that they are, with hardly an exception, demonstrably wrong, what- 
ever may be the case with the Egyptian and the Slavonic. | 


6 BOOK I. 


example, to examine the so-called etymological rules which 
Lersch (p. 96 ff.) has collected from the old etymologists. No 
difficulty is made about the passing of almost any sound into 
any other, even the most different: for instance @ passes into 
am (ciAamivn mapa 7d eikas Kai Td Boivn KaT evaddraynv TOV 
aroxeloy ‘KH. M.’ p. 298, 11), A into w (‘E. M.’ s.v. Mapvacos: 
*Avdpwv O€ pyar, érerd% mpotdppicev 4 Adpvag Tod AcvKa- 
Alwvos’ Kai TO pev mpotepov Aapynaads Exadeito’ tarepov dé, 
Kar’ évaddAay?y Tod d els 7, Mapvacés), uw into x (‘E. Gud.’ s.v. 
keraivegés). And yet, in the distinction of the ypdupara 
avrioto.xa, that is, those that interchange the oftenest, for 
instance x and x, A and p, a limiting principle had been 
discovered. There seem also not to have been wanting other 
attempts after surer rules. For example, in the ‘ Etymolo- 
gicum Magnum’ under the word kévaBos (p. 528, 14) we have 
it laid down that ovdémrore 76 t els a TpérreTau, a principle that 
is thoroughly borne out by the latest linguistic research. 
Yet how little such more reasonable views could make their 
way we may see without going beyond this very article, in 
which we find, notwithstanding, among many other deriva- 
tions of the word that from xévis and Boy. All kinds of 
artifices are pressed into the service ; among others that which 
chiefly astounds us is the extensive use of inserted letters 
and of whole syllables (mwAcovacpés). Lersch thinks all 
consonants but € were supposed to be inserted on occasion. 
Yet &AccWis and cvyKkory, perdbeors and brépOeois enjoyed 
their full share of favour. As farther all care in the con- 
sideration of the meaning, but especially all separation of 
stem from termination, is wanting, we see that this whole 
endeavour could not fail to degenerate at last into a mere 
. amusement that had no longer any claim to the name of a 
science. That such strange trifling could fetter clever and 
8 learned men for centuries—although the disease only grew 
little by little—would be hard to believe did we not re- 
encounter precisely similar examples in modern times. In 
the case of the old Greeks there were many palliating cireum- 
stances, especially that of the multiplicity of dialects, the 
deeper meaning of which was to be hidden from them, and 
from the moderns too, till the time of Jacob Grimm. The 


INTRODUCTION. 7 


apparently objectless change of sound between dialect and 
dialect contributed to some extent to the belief in the possi- 
bility of the most various changes and permutations within one 
and the same dialect as well. The in many ways fuller Homeric 
forms which they treated as derived from the Attic led to the 
notion that insertions and growths of all kinds were admis- 
sible in language. Moreover the upsetting of the old Greek 
pronunciation must not be lost sight of, as it introduced the 
strangest contradictions between the written and the spoken 
words, and must have had a confusing effect upon the science 
(Bernhardy ‘ad Suid. Comment.’ Cap. 2, p. xxxvii). 


2. 


Modern philology produced, at its very beginning, in the 
work of Julius Cesar Scaliger de causis linguae latinae, a bold 
attempt at independent investigation: still we can hardly 
recognise in this a real step in advance, unless we are ready 
to reckon as such a rash and venturesome self-confidence that 
approaches the deepest questions without a suspicion of their 
difficulty. The audacity of the derivation, especially of Latin 
words from Greek—for instance pulcher from moAvyeip (p. 53 
of the edition of Petrus Santandreanus in 1584), ordo from 
épov 6@,—is almost greater than in antiquity. The attempt of 
Henricus Stephanus at arranging the Greek words in his 
Thesaurus according to their derivation has been severely 
blamed by Buttmann (‘ Preface to the Lexilogus, p. iv), chiefly 
on the ground of superficiality. But, however full it is of 
mistakes, we cannot but recognise in this work, which laid 
the foundation of future efforts, a certain moderation in de- 
rivation and soundness of judgement. At all events Henr. 
Stephanus, while sadly feeling, as he confesses in his preface, 
the want of an Ariadne’s thread in Etymology, kept himself 
free from many follies which were loudly trumpeted forth 
centuries after his time.. On the relation of French to Latin 9 
too, as is pointed out by Max Miiller (‘ Lectures,’ 11. 240) he held 
a more sensible view than many others. Here and there we 
get gleams of light, as we should expect from so great a man, 


8 BOOK I. 


in Joseph Scaliger’s Coniectanea ad Varronem, to which are 
added alphabetically arranged verborum etymologiae.* In par- 
ticular, the relations of sounds to each other are not unfre- 
quently correctly noted. What in the seventeenth century 
was held possible on the point of the relation of Latin to 
Greek we may gather clearly from the lengthy tractatus de 
litterarum permutatione prefixed to the Htymologicum linguae 
latinae of Gerhard Joannes Vossius. Here we still find 
changes such as that of yu into s (similis from pipndrdos), v into 
s (mdéov plus), r into g (seges from serendo), 7 into v (vello 
from 7iAdq@), to say nothing of the frequent assumption of 
an additur, an adiicitur, or a traiicitur. Although we have 
moreover the intermixture of Hebrew and a completely per- 
verted view of the relation of Latin to Greek—which indeed 
has survived till quite lately—we must still see justice done 
to the acuteness of Vossius. His work is throughout more a 
collection of derivations, in which, as in the ‘Ktymologicum 
Magnum, several are as a rule placed side by side, while the 
author does not always decide between them. But Vossius 
has a delicate sense of the meanings of the words, and in 
this direction his diligent work will always be of service. A 
‘far more pretentious movement, now almost forgotten, was 
made by Dutch philology from the time of Hemsterhuys in 
the direction of a comprehensive etymological treatment of 
Greek, and incidentally of Latin also. Valckenaer’s observa- 
tiones academicae, quibus via munitur ad origines graecas in- 
vestigandas lexicorumque defectus resarciendos was followed by 
J. D. a Lennep’s praelectiones academicae de analogia linguae 
Graecae (1790), edited, as was also Lennep’s larger work, the 
‘Etymologicum linguae Graecae,’ by Everard Scheide, the 
latter work being supplemented by an ‘Index etymologicus 
praecipuarum vocum Latinarum.’ Latin is here treated simply 
as 8, dialectus linguae Graecae. The second edition of the 
‘Etymologicum’ by C. F. Nagel (Trajecti ad Rhen. 1808) 
deserves notice from the fact that we see from it how, no 
great while after the appearance of the much trumpeted new 
science, doubts began to be felt about it in Holland itself. 
For Nagel’s notes to Scheide’s ‘ Prolegomena’ follow in their 
track like lame attendants—mostly trying to disprove the 


INTRODUCTION. 9 


views in the text. What was new in these attempts lay in 
the method, which was to replace divining by calculation. 
Ruhnken, in his ‘ Elogium Hemsterhusii,’ extols it as a special 
merit that the vir summus ‘ tenebras linguae per tot saecula 
offusas ita discussit, ut, qua lingua nulla est neque verbis neque 
formis copiosior, eadem yam nulla reperiatur ad discendum 
facilior;’ he congratulates his age on seeing at once the rise 
and completion of what their predecessors had more wished 
than hoped for. Lennep looks down slightingly upon the 
earlier attempts in Etymology, which had only produced 
ludibria or tot mala bonis quibusdam mixta, without holding 
in analogia the Ariadne’s thread which was an infallible guide. 
This analogia, which at all events possessed this advantage 
over the other earlier attempts, that it kept within the 
limits of the two classical languages and laid down none but 
simple verbs as stipes or origines of the language, proceeds 
from the computation of all conceiveable simple verbs. Of 
verba bilitera—the of the 1st sing. pres. act. naturally counts 
always as a letter—there can be only five: do, éo, io, da, 
vw; the trilitera are divided into two classes, one of which 
has the consonant at the beginning of the word: Bd, yda, 
the other in the middle: #Bo, dyw. Seeing that v and fas 
‘Digamma,’ count for nothing and the double consonants are 
not reckoned in, and consequently 11 consonants and 5 vowels 
are left, there are 55 possible verbs of each sort. As to the 
quadrilitera, in quibus consonantes et vocales alternatim sunt 
positae, such aS Aéyw, Adyw, Lennep begins to think it pos- 
sible that they may be derivata, still he makes room for these 
too among the stem-verbs. Verbs with five letters though 
count as derivata, they have arisen either addita vocali ab 
initio: é€-0€dw, or consonante: o-uvye, or vocali interposita : 
paiva a pave, or interposita consonante: tim7wa tio. Still 
bolder assumptions were needed to explain verbs with more 
than five letters; in their case wnsertio quarumvis fere lite- 
rarum was allowed. The meaning too was connected with 
the form: Verba quae non nisi vocali ante w inter se differunt 
significationem unam propriam communem habent (Lennep, 
‘Prolegomena Etymolog.’ p. 5)—Sic verba indicata da, éw ete. 
significationem propriam communem habent, quae in leni spr- 


10 BOOK I. 


ramine posita est, quaeque ipsis literis a vel e ete. pronunci- 
andis eficitur. So again dpa, tpa, pave, pév count as eadem 
quasi verba, as moreover those too stand in closer relation to 
each other, quae consonante vicina differunt (p. 6), e.g. yao 
and yd, Aéyw and Aéyw. Thus we understand how Lennep 
can say: lingua Graeca comparatur horto paucis arboribus 
consito, inter se plane similibus. A more important rule 
11 for the meaning is the following: notiones verborum propriae 
omnes sunt corporeae sive ad res pertinentes, quae sensus nostros 
externos feriunt. For the explanation of formative suffixes the 
freest use is made of the method of deriving them from real or 
assumed personal terminations of the verbs. Thus Aéxos is 
developed from a hypothetical Aéy@, yépwrv from yépw honori- 
bus fungo, ap from the imaginary perfect 7da, dupa from 
Appar, A€~ts from AéAc~ar, twarHp from mémrarai (rd alo, 
nutrio). As to the surprising notion that first and second 
persons might be transformed to substantival forms, these 
learned Dutchmen experienced as little doubt as the old 
erammarians, who had already forestalled them in such 
theories. It was enough to have succeeded in connecting the 
noun with any part whatever of a verb, and what was 
* originally perhaps brought in rather as a practical assistance 
for learners took up its place unchallenged in this recta ratio 
or via regia. ‘The perverseness of this course was exposed as 
early as Gottfr. Hermann’s work de emendanda ratione gram- 
maticae graecae, p. 123; but he did not criticize the principles 
any farther, nor did he confute them. He would probably 
have found it hard to do the latter from his point of view. 
Nowadays no one attends to these old futilities; neverthe- 
less views have been but recently advanced which do not 
differ substantially from them: e.g. that of the supposed con- 
nexion between the 3rd pl. act. in nti and the participial stems 
in nt, and a computation of ‘original syllables ’ formed by the 
possible combinations of the sounds, resuscitated—though 
only for the purposes: of theory—in Conrad Hermann’s ' 
‘ philosophische Grammatik’ (Leipz. 1858), p. 166. However 
we do find here and there a grain of wheat among the chaff. 
Scheide for instance recognized the identity of the Latin verbs 
of the so-called first conjugation with the Greek verbs in -aa; 


INTRODUCTION. iM: 


and, what is of more importance, saw that the ending pecu- 
liar to the Ist pers. sing. was mi (‘Proleg.’ p. xxxii sqq.). 
On similar principles Christian Tobias Damm had already, 
before the above-mentioned Dutch publications, brought out 
his ‘Lexicon Homero-Pindaricum,’ which, as arranged alpha- 
betically by Duncan, is best known in Rost’s edition (Lips. 
1836). Even in this edition there is a failure of etymological 
penetration, for we find among other things paddéuy€é referred to 
the stem @ (pgov Oapifery), Bears to the stem Bods—for Damm 
assumes nouns too as primary forms,—éAcos to dé. The 
Dutch school meanwhile disappeared, but the root of all those 
errors has sprouted abundantly since, and it is perhaps worth 
while to find out the mparov yeddos from which so much evil has 1: 
sprung. This zp@rov weddos consists in a radically false view 
of the nature of human speech and the origin of the classical 
tongues. It is an all but universal blunder of the last cen- 
tury, and all inquiries that date from it, to think it possible 
to go back by means of Greek to the beginnings of the human 
race. That close behind Homer lay the cradle of mankind 
was for a long time held—in direct opposition to the theories 
now favoured by natural science, which reckon by thousands 
of years—to be indisputable. In this case the race must 
have risen as quickly from its swaddling-clothes to youth’s 
vigour and manhood’s reflection, and all arts and sciences, as 
the baby Hermes in the Homeric hymn (v. 17)— 


NBS yeyovas péow Huate eyKOdpicer, 
éomépios Bots KrAéypev ExnPddov ’Amr6AA@Vos. 


If the oldest Greek is not recognized as widely removed 
from the original language of mankind, or if, in other words, 
the veteres nominum impositores, spoken of not seldom even 
by Lobeck, are considered to be Greeks, it is extremely 
likely that all conceptions formed a priori of the most ancient 
condition of language will be transferred to Greek. Now 
foremost among these conceptions ,stands that of extreme 
simplicity, and so it naturally follows that the simplest 
forms are held to be the oldest and the less simple are de- 
rived from these as from stems. Considering the subject 
from this point of view we shall not refuse the Dutchmen 


12 BOOK I. 


above-mentioned at least the merit of logical consistency ; 
though it is true this leads, when pressed still further, to the 
ingenious attempts of Anton Schmitt, who, in his ‘ Organismus 
der Griechischen Sprache’ (1836), traces all Greek words to 
the letter «, and in his ‘Organismus der Lateinischen Sprache’ 
(1846) traces all Latin ones to the ‘Urelementarwurzelwort ’ 
he or hi. Such simplicity surely is unsurpassable, and truly 
primeval! The German philologists who since Hermann have 
laid the foundation of Greek Grammar and Lexicography had 
too much sound common sense to lose themselves in such 
extravagances as those. These men, whom we have to thank 
for such invaluable assistance, had far too much to do in the 
criticism and explanation of their texts, in the settlement of 
rules of grammar, in the confutation of absurd views, and in 
the establishment of a real knowledge of classical antiquity, to 
venture otherwise than occasionally on the slippery ground 
of Etymology. Etymology remained a step-child of Philology. 
13 Derivations were given with reluctance, and when the process 
was unavoidable, it was gone through with a kind of smile 
behind which lurked the consciousness that others had done 
it far worse. The less the study was taken up in earnest, 
the greater the boldness of the general principles broached 
on occasion, and in these we clearly recognize the above- 
mentioned mp@rov Weddos. When, for instance, G. Hermann, 
who is always so fond of starting from a general proposition, 
maintains, in the work before alluded to (p. 186), Credibile est, 
initio omnes nominum formas generis significatione caruisse, 
quam serius demum, sexuum observata diversitate et in linguas 
introducta, accessisse probabile est, we have there the same 
inference from a general and quite arbitrary view of the be- 
ginnings of language on the whole, to the Greek language. 
A similar line of thought is followed by Lobeck in his ‘Pnya- 
Tikov, Which begins with the words Quemadmodum pictura a 
monochromatis orsa est, sic verborum structura a monosyllabis. 
By monosyllaba he does not mean, as we should have expected, 
roots, which we should readily admit to be monosyllables ; 
but, in adherence to the theory of the old grammarians men- 
tioned on p. 7, contracted verbs like dpe, A@, which become 
monosyllabic in the 1st pers. sing. pres. as the result of con- 


INTRODUCTION. 13 


traction. Lobeck, then, has taken the trouble to show that— 
to translate his words into our language—the stems ending in 
a consonant (such as dpa, dak) have bases (dpa, da) ending 
in a vowel. In this observation there is, as we shall see later, 
some truth; but thus generally expressed it is, notwithstand- 
ing Fick’s attempts in the same direction, unwarranted. Thus 
we see that the Grammar of old-established precedents with 
its pride of sobriety was, as I have shown at greater length 
in the ‘Zeitschrift f. Alterthumsw.’ 1843, p. 51 ff., far bolder 
than the new method, at all events as regards most of its 
representatives. Hven in Lobeck’s last work, the ‘Elementa 
pathologiae graeci sermonis, we meet with the same funda- 
mental views. On account of the assumed simplicity of the 
oldest lanouages Lobeck is always far more inclined to assume 
the addition than the loss of a sound. He considers it not 
impossible to derive Aeioow and BAéra@ from Ade, Bia from is 
(p. 90), while o, though frequently expelled, is also added soni 
aspirandi causa (p. 129). While he is very strict in ad- 
mitting syncope (p. 348), he allows internal augmentation of 
words to a somewhat large extent, for he teaches (p. 137) 
saepius vocabulorum primitivorum potestates non compositione 
solum et derivatione sed etiam intestinis quibusdam mutationibus 
pressius definiri solent, so that actually the old derivation of 
gofos from o€ds is allowed, and goiros conjecturally rests on 14 
ejut aS an initially increased itus. Still bolder is the as- 
sumption of the prosthesis of 7A in mAevpd from evpos(p. 140), 
of or in orévvé from dvug, of m7 in mrdpos from dpa, orto (ep. 
‘Rhematikon, p. 245). With Lobeck, however, even such 
attempts, whose questionableness he himself sometimes notices, 
are always united to such rich learning, such fine philological 
discrimination, and such careful regard for tradition, that they 
yet contribute much to the comprehension of the principles of 
Greek Etymology, and, even in cases where the results of the 
inquiry cannot be allowed, the process of their discovery— 
and this cannot be said of the processes of Lennep and Scheide 
—is itself exceedingly valuable from the material which he 
has worked up in them. The same, however, cannot be said 
of the many wild derivations that, especially since the time 
of Joh. Gottl. Schneider, after being added to and altered by 


14 BOOK I. 


Franz Passow!, meet us still in the majority of the Lexicons 
in use. The first Greek Lexicon based on a more correct in- 
sight into Etymology is Karl Schenkl’s ‘Greek-German School- 
Dictionary’ (Vienna, 1859). 

More earnestly than any celebrated philologist of the older 
school did Ludwig Déderlein enter into the study of the 
Etymology of the classical languages. It is true that Ety- 
mology is for him too, both in his ‘Synonymen und Etymolo- 
gien, and especially in his ‘Homerisches Glossarium,’ more 
a means than an end. Still he acquired from the diligent 
inquiry which was the continued employment of his long and 
laborious life a kind of theory which is in the main the only 
one that has been arrived at by recent philology without the 
help of the comparison of languages. And yet there were 
probably few who agreed with his etymological principles, 
in spite of his great merit in other respects. No one followed 
him in his assumption of ‘dichotomic’ and ‘trichotomic’ bases, 
or in his other elaborate propositions, and it may be doubted 
if any of his numerous pupils could to-day with Déderlein 
(‘Lateinische Wortbildung, p. 45) “think it allowable to 
ascribe to Latin to a certain extent the character of a jargon.” 
Doderlein acknowledged in principle the importance of the 
comparative science of language, and claimed to have dis- 
tinguished formerly between ‘Wortforschung’ (the study 
of words) and ‘Sprachenvergleichung’ (the comparison of 

15 languages) and afterwards between ‘esoteric’ and ‘ exoterie’ 
inquiry. But he continually overleaped the bounds he had 
himself laid down, and propounded the boldest theories on 
the subject of the early history of all the life of language 
which lies on the further side of the single language, as also 
on that of the primary forms of words; and these theories he 
then regarded as sure ground in the treatment of special 
questions. I have attempted a more minute investigation 
of his etymological processes in the ‘Zeitschrift fir die 
osterreich. Gymnasien, 1851, pp. 36-47. I acknowledged 
then, in spite of fundamental objections, the extraordinary 

* One of Passow’s whims is the objection he has to considering old 


words as compounds, which Pott (E. F. i. 158) has justly combated in 
reference to the word éaépwros, 


INTRODUCTION. 1S 


and at times most felicitous sagacity, as well as the subtle 
knowledge of language displayed by a man whom I too join 
in honouring, and I may express the same acknowledgement 
again here. For my present object, however, it will be enough 
to point out that the means used by Doderlein to bring forms 
of different sound together are often directly the opposite of 
those used by Lobeck and the Dutch etymologists. While 
these latter talk of words growing up, expanding, and spring- 
ing from the shortest possible stems, Déderlein is much in- 
clined to suppose older, fuller forms, or, as he likes to call 
them, ‘primary forms’ (sometimes ‘postulated forms,’ Preface 
to his ‘Glossary,’ p. v), from which the words used in historical 
times have arisen by loss, elision, and weakening. We need 
only compare what Doderlein in his book on Latin word- 
formation has collected under the head ‘Ausbildung’ (Ex- 
pansion), pp. 112-119, with the complicated and far-reaching 
treatment of ‘Umbildung’ (transformation), pp. 119-202. The 
fundamental principle of his whole procedure is indeed again 
a purely subjective view of the earliest condition of language. 
While Lobeck and the Dutch school hold a verb like Avw to be 
absolutely primitive, Doderlein has to consider it as already 
mutilated if he wishes to hold fast by the principle (‘ Homer. 
Gloss.’ I, Preface p. vii) that “in the primary form of a word 
consonant and vowel regularly alternate.” Lobeck regards 
Greek neuters like pévos, dyos as original so far as to treat 
them as the earliest derivatives from the verbs; while with 
Doderlein all such forms are abbreviations of what he calls 
trichotomic primary forms (‘Glossary, p. 7 note)—e.g. pévos 
from peverov (p. 91), dyos from dyerév (p. 277). It is plain 
that in this case no decision is possible in the absence of an 
external ruling principle; without one each fresh etymologist 
will hold that form to be the primitive one which corresponds 
best to his views of the oldest condition of language. And 
can any one believe it possible to construct that condition 
@ priori, as men used once to construct the state from the 16 
meeting together of primitive men, and the feelings awakened 
by one in the breast of another? The oldest language (it may 
be said) must have been simple, like the life of the men who 
spoke it. The opposite of this can be maintained just as well: 


16 BOOK I. 


the organs of men in those early days were stronger, their 
senses quicker, and so they could make use of forms that were 
fuller and more difficult to pronounce than were possible to 
the generations of their descendants whom civilization rendered 
effeminate. In this case the path of hypothesis is not the one 
that will bring us to our goal. 


3. 


It was the comparative study of languages that first gave 
Etymology a surer hold. But, before we pass to the services 
it has rendered us, we must make grateful mention of the man 
who, before the discovery of the new resources, without doubt 
contributed most to the elucidation of Greek Etymology. 
Philipp Buttmann had the true spirit of a judicious, pene- 
trating etymologer in a degree which makes us most deeply 
regret that he made no use of the rich treasures discovered 
while he was still alive by Grimm and Bopp. He would 
have been exactly the man to make them the means of 
diffusing really fresh ight. Buttmann is distinguished from 
the men who were upon the same footing as himself especially 
in two ways. He has sense and feeling for the growth of 
language, and takes the trouble to understand it from a study 
of its own phenomena, instead of forcing it into traditional or 
invented schemes. Hence he often makes very profitable use 
of the dialects, which Lobeck almost entirely excludes from 
his inquiry, and selects with happy tact the oldest forms, 
which he knows better than any of his predecessors how to 
analyze. So far, then, Buttmann is already a forerunner of 
the historical study of language. Lobeck shows most to 
advantage when he is arranging with a nice accuracy a 
large stock of words of varying authority and from differ- 
ent mints, drawing attention to the complexion and force 
of a particular class, and undertaking from that point of 
view to remove absurdities and correct mistakes. Still he 
always treats language from the standpoint of a critic and 
an interpreter, and consequently the most recent has for him 
the same charm as the earliest. Hence Lobeck must have 


INTRODUCTION. Lh 


before his mind the men who made and used the words. 
Involuntarily he represents to himself a nominum impositor }, 17 
that he may test his art with the critic’s probe. With Butt- 
mann it is quite different. He is attracted by the earliest 
stages, and so, above all, by the language of Homer, with 
regard to which we cannot yet speak of a conscious shaping 
of the language or of its so-called developement by civiliza- 
tion. With consummate acuteness, and a method which is a 
pattern of clearness, and charming freshness, he can explain 
the meaning of many half-understood Homeric words. So 
well aware is he of the difficulty of Etymology proper, that 
he makes it a principle to seek invariably the explanation of 
hard words from their use, before resorting to their supposed 
derivation. No philologist of his age so clearly perceived the 
dangers of grammatical tradition, or furthered in so many 
ways the treatment of Greek as a continuous natural growth. 
Doubtless he has entangled himself in many errors in his 
work. In the explanations in his ‘ Lexilogus’ he attaches, 
like Doderlein, far too little value to the traditions of the 
Alexandrian grammarians, for whom the Konigsberg school 
have made us feel greater respect ; it is true that this respect 
degenerates sometimes to an excessive reverence for and too 
servile imitation of the old ways. Although in referring 
words to their stems, and adjusting their relation to each 
other, Buttmann tries to arrive at fixed laws of sound, still he 


1 Madvig (‘ Kleine Philologische Schriften, p. 327) angrily defends 
Lobeck in this matter against the words in the text. Like Whitney, 
he lays stress on the fact that Language was the work of men. As if 
any one had doubted it! All the same, there is a very great difference 
between the result of the unconcerted, unconscious common activity of 
men who are united in one tribe or people, as seen in their language, 
laws, faith, or manners, and that which individual poets, thinkers, 
orators, or lawgivers, consciously and of set purpose, determine. The 
former we are accustomed to call a natural growth. The expression is 
no doubt figurative, and is open to the same misconstruction to which 
the language is liable which talks of Nature’s laws as constraining and 
governing the individual in his language; but it is perfectly justifiable 
as a protest against the fashion, complained of above, of imagining a 
responsible originator for every process of language, even when it is 
demonstrably the product of many forces acting at different times. 

C 


18 BOOK I. 


goes astray in the endeavour like any dilettante when he 
admits by preference particular transitions—such e.g. as the 
interchange of the hard mutes and aspirates,—as in the deri- 
vation of axy#v from @ privativum and yaivw maintained in 
‘Lexil.’ i. 12 and too often repeated, and when he in general 
falsely represents the older language as indistinct in its sounds, 
rough (‘rauhgriechisch,’ ‘ Lexil.’ 1. 121 note), and only gradu- 
18 ally acquiring a settled character (‘ Lexil.’ ii. 241 note). There 
is still evident here the effect of the preposterous hypothesis 
mentioned on page 12. But Buttmann completely loses his 
way when he, as he frequently does, brings forward German 
words by way of comparison. In so doing he has given an 
impulse to many etymological futilities, since Germans natur- 
ally took a special delight in making use of their dear mother- 
tongue to explain Greek in all possible cases, with no knowledge 
of Gothic and Old-High-German, and with no regard to the laws 
of the shifting of sounds!. This was the penalty Buttmann paid 
for having as late as 1825—six years after the first, three after 
the second edition of Grimm’s ‘Grammar, nine years after 
Bopp’s ‘Conjugationssystem’—Jlearnt nothing from these 
works that introduced a new epoch in the science. It was, 
it is true, no easy thing for a man advanced in years, and of 
established critical reputation, who had struck his roots into 
a different soil, to adopt completely these new points of view. 
We will gratefully acknowledge Buttmann’s services; and 
we can always find in his treatment of Greek words, more 
especially as regards distinctions of meaning, a pattern for 
ourselves. Particularly for the investigation of Homeric 
words we shall even now do well to apply to Buttmann 
where occasion offers, to find in his lucid and sterling de- 
monstrations a multitude of noteworthy points of view. In 


’ Buttmann arrived, independently as it appears, at the supposition 
that the German / corresponded to the Greek « (‘Lexil.’ i. 35, note 2), 
though all the same he compares the German Hort with épya (i. 112, 
note). It is true the same idea had dawned on Morhof in his ‘ Un- 
terricht von der teutschen Sprache und Poésie,’ Kiel, 1682, in which 
at page 58 cornu is justly compared with horn, and xapdia with the 
Low-German hart. But what a difference between such casual 
observations and the consistent adherence to a law of language ! 


INTRODUCTION. 19 


general younger scholars, furnished with the richer resources 
of Comparative Philology, will have continually much to 
learn from the older school, on which they too often look 
down with an unwarrantable contempt. For Etymology, 
as for everything else, the exact knowledge of particulars 
is far more important than many imagine in their hasty 
theorizings. 


4. 


That Greek along with Latin is a link in the chain that 
stretches from India to the West of Europe was proved more 19 
than sixty years ago by Franz Bopp, not by any attempt at a 
comprehensive explanation of words, but by the analysis of 
the structure of language, and its grammatical forms. This 
way was without any doubt the right one. For the gram- 
matical forms present, as every one now knows, far fewer 
difficulties in analysis than the coined and stamped words, 
and the similarity of inflexion, especially in the verbs, is 
so striking that conviction was most readily obtained on 
this side. Bopp consequently occupied himself only occa- 
sionally with our present subject—that of the explanation of 
words—especially in the ‘Comparative Grammar’ (second ed. 
1857-61, third ed. 1868-72), and in the work in which we find 
his views collected in their shortest form—the ‘Glossarium 
Sanscritum’ (ed. tertia Berol. 1867, 4to). The real com- 
parative etymologist is rather Aug. Friedr. Pott, whose 
‘Etymologische Forschungen auf dem Gebiete der indo- 
germanischen Sprachen’ (Lemgo 1833 and 1836, second 
edition revised, or rather rewritten, Detmold 1859-73) is a 
treasure-house of striking comparisons and ingenious and 
always instructive suggestions, the result of a knowledge 
of language that would astound the reader of the book, 
if the author had not shown by his later works, compre- 
hending the languages of all parts of the globe, that he 
feels cramped in a region that is limited to merely a portion 
of Asia and Europe. It was perhaps not favourable to the 
spread of the new science that before Bopp had yet finished 

C2 


20 BOOK I. 


his systematic, and soundly demonstrated exposition of the 
structure of language, an investigator of the vaulting, often 
grotesque and paradoxical style that Pott is so fond of, 
brought his troops into the field. The proud contempt with 
which Greek and Latin scholars for a long time used to 
treat the new method, to make up for it later by a feeble 
recognition, which, however, did not prevent them from 
habitually banishing the ‘Indianists, the ‘Sanscritists,’ the 
‘Comparative Philologists’ to the Ganges and the Brah- 
mans or even further, as unworthy of classical soil, will 
always remain an unpleasant feature in the history of the 
new science. Carl Ottfried Miller was the first scholar of 
mark in these circles to recognize openly the great importance 
of the comparative method. But it certainly cannot be denied 
that the form of the earlier works of comparative philologists, 
especially those concerned with etymology, made it very diffi- 
cult to form a judgement about the new doctrines without 
20 protracted study, for which at that time there were far fewer 
opportunities than now, and that the multitude of extremely 
bold, and in some cases decidedly false suggestions, that 
went hand in hand with the most certain facts, could not 
fail to frighten many away. Nevertheless we must gratefully 
acknowledge that by far the larger part of what has been done 
in this line towards the elucidation of Greek words we owe to 
Pott, whose sagacity allowed hardly anything to escape it that 
could be arrived at by the means in his power, and who has 
kept clear withal of many mistakes into which some of his 
fellow scholars fell. After the appearance of this important 
work, Greek was made the centre of a new and comprehen- 
sive treatment of the Indo-Germanic vocabulary in Benfey’s 
‘Griechisches Wurzellexikon’ (Berlin 1889 and 1842). That 
in my opinion the method followed in this book is a false one, 
and that the whole attempt in so extended a form was prema- 
ture, I have already said on former occasions. We shall 
immediately consider more closely a few of the more essential 
points where I disagree with Benfey, and many others will 
have to be noticed later in individual instances. Notwith- 
standing, by his ingenuity and his power of combination, the 
author has been of frequent service to Greek Etymology. 


INTRODUCTION. ° ie, 


Leo Meyer, Benfey’s pupil, who shares many of his teacher's 
questionable views, has in smaller essays, and especially in 
his ‘ Vergleichende Grammatik des Griechischen und Latein- 
ischen’ (1861, 18638, 2nd ed. 1884), brought forward many 
etymological comparisons, summarily for the most part, and 
without any proof. A contrast to these are Hugo Weber's 
‘Ktymologische Untersuchungen’ (1861), which deal most care- 
fully and in detail with a number of Greek stems. A rich mine 
of etymologies and interesting, though at the same time often 
very questionable, comparisons is to be found in Pictet’s sug- 
gestive and now little noticed work ‘Les Origines Indo-Euro- 
péennes ou les Aryas primitifs’ (Paris 1859, 1863, 2nd ed. 1882). 
Among the more important writers on the subject of language 
Schleicher showed a radical distaste for all etymologizing, the 
result of a special liking for one kind of investigation. On the 
other hand Corssen, in his various works, mainly devoted to 
Latin, gives a large number of etymologies for Greek words as 
well, and to these I have had to pay careful attention. I believe, 
however, that Iam not wrong in saying that Corssen’s merits, 
while distinguished in other directions, are not so discernible in 
the department of Etymology. The scholar who decidedly ranks 
next to Pott in this department is F. C. August Fick. There is 
no recent work from which I have learnt so much as from his 
‘Vergleichendes Worterbuch der Indogermanischen Sprachen, 
a work which is full of acute combinations (third edition, Got- 
tingen 1874-76). I say this all the more readily as I find 
myself unable to follow this scholar, much as I agree with him 
in many points respecting the divisions of the Indo-Germanic 
stock, in the views lately expressed by him on this head in 
Bezzenberger’s ‘ Beitrage.’ For the other works and periodicals 
which have been of service to me, I may refer to the alpha- 
betical list which follows the Table of Contents. Vaniéek’s in- 
dustrious ‘Griechisch-lateinisches Etymologisches Worterbuch’ 
just came out at the right time to be of use to me. 

We saw above that many questions that are inseparable 
from every etymological enquiry were not to be answered by 
any process of abstract speculation, calculation, or conjecture. 
The relation of the languages was found to furnish in many 
cases the decisive authority, so that many of these questions 


bo 


De BOOK T. 


were settled at a glance. The case in fact resembled that of 
textual criticism. Passages on which the labour of conjecture 
has been spent in vain, right themselves often of their own 
accord as soon as a newly-discovered manuscript of older date 
gives us other readings. The new discovery then sets in the 
true light the mutual relation of the critical appliances 
hitherto known, and textual criticism is based firmly on a 
Stemma Codicum in which all the MSS. are grouped in 
families. The several languages of the Indo-Germanic stock 
may to a certain extent be compared to so many copies of the 
lost original MS. Not one presents us with a faithful copy of 
the original text, but taken collectively they are important to 
us as old witnesses of a state of the language, not directly 
known to us, which in many instances at all events ap- 
proaches nearly to the original. Each copy has its peculiar, 
regularly recurring blunders, but the copies mutually correct 
each other; we can also arrange them according to their im- 
portance, and for several, as we shall see later on, we can 
discover a secondary source common to certain only of the 
number. To wish to confine inquiry on etymological subjects 
to a single language is just as much a mistake as it would be 
to emend Plautus and neglect the Ambrosianus and the vetus 
codex, or to emend Sophocles without the help of the Lauren- 
tianus A—as absurd as the old-fashioned practice of hammering 
at received texts, a practice which, however, has gradually 
fallen into such ill repute that no one ventures on it any 
22 longer. It is true that all the evidence we have of the state 
of the Indo-Germanic language before its division is not 
completely legible ; the tradition too as a whole has some not 
inconsiderable gaps, witness is wanting now from this lan- 
guage, now from that, and it is not often that the whole list 
can be appealed to on any particular question. But if on this 
account we are systematically to neglect these witnesses we 
shall be as wise as if we were to consider no manuscript but 
the one that happens to be in our hands, because the others 
have lacunae. Hence the oft-repeated rule, “see your way 
clearly in each language separately before you try to learn 
from the languages related to it,’ is quite untenable. The 
languages before the separation were not, as some still sup- 


INTRODUCTION. 23 


pose, rough, restricted to a few meagre roots!, and immature, 
but were probably as perfect and complete as their structure 
allowed. The Indo-Germanic language was not vague in its 
sounds, but firmly stamped with definite clearly-recognizable 
forms. The task of the student of language is not that of 
showing how a chaos, a ‘primeval mud’ has gradually taken 
shape; it rather is like that of the historian of art who traces 
the life-like figures of the art’s prime in the rigid but clear-cut 
types of an earlier stage in which the art’s foundations were 
laid. But a return to that earlier stage is indispensable. 
The Greeks did not make their language themselves; they 
had a rich inheritance, and they marvellously transfigured it. 
So any one who wishes to penetrate at all to the origin of 
words must inquire throughout whether the related languages 
do not cast a peculiar light on the phenomena of the single 
language, and then only is he entitled to restrict himself to 
the single language, when he has strengthened his position by 
the wider knowledge thus gained. 

The older school of Etymology alternated between two 
views: one was that the forms met with in Greek had grown 
out of simpler and shorter ones; the other, that by the 
reverse of this process they had shrunk from older, longer, 
and fuller forms by considerable abbreviations. Speaking 
broadly, the comparative method declares for the second of 
these views. On finding, for instance, in Sanskrit the root 
vas, in Latin ves (ves-ti-s), in Gothic vas (ga-vas-jan) with the 
meaning of ‘to clothe, all doubt vanishes as to whether the 
above-mentioned forms can have been amplifications of the 
Greek € in €y-vv-yi, or whether the reverse is the case; 
whether we are, in accordance with a view that is not yet 28 
completely exploded, to consider the traces of the F at the be- 
ginning of the Greek word as a parasitic modification of the 
initial letter,—as if an initial F could appear at pleasure—or 
rather as the remnant of the original form of the word. Vas 
is the oldest form, to which we here have three-fold testimony, 
a form historically handed down to us, from which critical 


1 Bernhardy (‘Griech. Litteratur, third ed. 1. p. 214) demands 
from Comparative Grammar ‘a trustworthy list of naked roots.’ 


94, BOOK I, 


principles imperatively bid us start. On the contrary, when 
we find in Sanskrit, Latin, Gothic, Lithuanian, and Slavonic 
the root i meaning go, and meet it again in the Greek ei-y, 
i-wev, we shall not allow ourselves to suppose with Lobeck, 
that this root has received in ¢ot-ro-s an unaccountable labial 
initial, but rather shall be obliged to assign the latter word to 
another root. It is quite true that the comparative philologist 
arrives, as he penetrates further, at a period in which even 
roots experience special accretions. We shall have occasion 
later on to notice more closely how a number of roots are 
expanded by the addition of final consonants. But if we 
leave out of consideration this process, in which we recognize 
the oldest method of word-formation, and those chance modi- 
fications arising from the spontaneous generation of subsidiary 
or kindred sounds, words grow only by the amalgamation of 
the substance of language with the formative elements, i.e. by 
inflexion and formation, and by means of the easily cognizable — 
phenomena allied to these. But every change of sound be- 
longing to any other period is based on the fundamental 
principle of the history of language, that which Bopp calls the 
degeneration (‘ Entartung’), but which we prefer to call the 
weathering away (‘ Verwitterung’), of sounds, although this 
by no means implies a decay of the language itself}. 

In thus assigning to all change of root-sounds a single 
definite direction by means of the comparison of languages, 
we have already. done inestimable service to the etymology of 
each single member of this circle. The older school of 
Etymology arrived, it is true (to take one instance), at the 
conjecture that the Greek spiritus asper corresponded to the 
Latin initial s; but which of the two sounds was the older, 

24 whether the preference was to be given to the Greek 7c or to 


1 The growth of the stores of material, gathered from most various 
languages and dialects for the comparative philologist, has only made it 
plainer that sounds change in a great variety of ways. We shall return 
below, on p. 409 ff., to the question as to how far many sound changes, 
which have not been previously sufficiently recognized, or have been 
otherwise interpreted, may fairly be brought under the head of 
‘weakening. Under all circumstances desire for ease of articulation 
is, and remains, the chief source of all phonetic change. 


.~< 


INTRODUCTION. 25 


the Latin sémi, they either did not ask at all, or answered the 
question in different ways, but most frequently with the 
favourite theory, hatched out of nothing at all, of the ‘con- 
densation of the aspirates.’ Comparative Etymology estab- 
lishes from a majority of languages the priority of the s, and 
in accordance with the fundamental tendency of all change of 
sound, the more recent origin of the spiritus asper. The 
same thing has occurred in other analogous cases. In the 
place of the vague formula ‘a and 6 interchange’ appeared 
almost universally the definite one ‘a becomes b.’ Not less 
decisive were the results in the case of the analysis of forms. 
Apart from the newly acquired insight into the essential 
structure of languages, which does not fall within the pro- 
vince of Etymology as here understood, the just distinction 
between stem and termination could not fail to be of the 
greatest importance for the study of individual words. Even 
Doderlein treated the nominative of the noun and the present 


‘indicative of the verb as the form from which to start, and 


Lobeck is not saved by any principle from this error. As 
soon as we start with the correct theory as to the stem we 
obtain a completely different point of view, and consequently 
to a great degree different results. A third characteristic of 
the etymological method is the collection of closely related 
words into the same class. Here too, as was natural, much 
that was new presented itself. The mass of forms and words 
in different languages that were at once seen to correspond 
immediately was exceedingly large, and there was thus fur- 
nished a considerable family of words for the etymology af 
the single languages to work upon. But if any were in- 
clined already to regard the real work as done, they would 
err greatly in spite of all the progress that had been made. 
Etymology is no more exhausted with the establishment of 
the affinities and principles of a language accompanied by a 
respectable list of the words common to several languages, 
than is the criticism of a text, with the arrangement of the 
manuscripts in families, and a series of striking emendations 
drawn from the manuscripts hitherto but little used. That 
is only the foundation. When this is laid the more difficult 
and delicate work begins. Not all changes of sound are so 


26 BOOK Tf. 


evident as those first perceived; the rich and intricate web of 
language shows us much which is strange, and which only 
dawns gradually on an eye made keen by practice. By the 
process of weathering away forms originally quite different 
can become nearly and even identically the same, so that 
doubt may arise as to the root to which a given form belongs. 
The Greek spiritus asper, for example, has arisen sometimes 
from an original s, sometimes from an original y, in certain 
25 cases even from the spiritus lenis: from s in the article 6 = 
Skt. sa, from y in the relative pronoun 6-5 = Skt. ja-s, from 
the spiritus lenis in immo-s = Skt. acva-s, Lat. equo-s (primitive 
form ak-va-s). Doubts may here arise, which in many cases 
can only be solved by careful investigation of particulars, and 
especially by a nice appreciation of the meaning. The cases 
in which we have thus to decide between different possibilities 
are very numerous. The limits too within which the laws 
and tendencies of sounds hold good have been but gradually 
perceived. Hot-headed eagerness has frequently been sobered” 
down, and the separate life of the several languages, developed 
on the basis of a common inheritance and a similar plan, has 
again made its true importance felt’. That in this line there 
is still an immense amount to be done will be seen at once by 
all who are occupied in investigating the particulars of the 
subject. There remain the further and to a certain extent far 
more difficult questions as to the developement of meaning, 
to which we shall return at the end of these introductory 
considerations. Previous contributions to the science of 
language need in different ways to be subjected to sound eriti- 
cism, both as to method and as to separate assertions, and not 
least in the region of Greek Etymology. To contribute to 
this end is the principal purpose of this work, and therefore 
it will be well in the next place to examine certain funda- 
mental questions of far-reaching importance. We shall in the 
course of this inquiry be obliged constantly to express nega- 


* See my essay ‘ Die Vergleichende Sprachforschung in ihrer neue- 
sten Gestalt’ in the ‘Monatsschrift fiir Wissensch. und Litteratur,’ 
Jan. 1853, and my inaugural address ‘Philologie und Sprachwissen- 
schaft ’ (Leipzig, 1862). 


INTRODUCTION. 27 


tive views, but occasions will naturally offer themselves at 
the same time of arriving at positive principles as to the 
course to be observed in this work. 


5. 


In the first place it cannot be doubted that, in the first 
rejoicings over the magnificent discovery of Sanskrit, the 
value of this language for the Etymologist was for a time 
overrated, and that it acquired an excessive importance in 
comparison with the other families of languages of the same 
stock. No competent scholar, it is true, ever maintained that 
Sanskrit was the mother of the other languages, and it was 
only ignorance which could imagine that the comparative 26 
study of language aimed at regarding Latin and Greek words 
as ‘foreign’ interlopers. But seeing that the first students of 
this method all started with Sanskrit, and felt most at home 
in that language, it was natural that they should ask in the 
first place what were the equivalents of Sanskrit roots and 
words in the other languages, and that while doing this they 
should too exclusively regard the Sanskrit system of sounds 
and forms as their data. Owing to the transparency of its 
construction, the nicety of its laws and its great antiquity in 
many respects, and especially that of its vowel-system, San- 
skrit was better adapted than any other language to open 
men’s eyes to the nature of the connexion of all the sister- 
languages. The exuberance of the old Indian literature, the 
antiquity of its most revered monument the ‘Rig-véda, the per- 
fection of its alphabet, the remarkable acuteness and diligence 
of its native grammarians, who have prepared the most valu- 
able assistance for the study of Etymology, if only by their 
discovery of the conception of roots and their careful lists 
of roots, all these are claims on the part of Sanskrit, which 
only within the last half-century has become the field of such 
fresh and important investigations, to retain permanently the 
prominent position of importance for the study of the whole 
Indo-Germanic stock of languages. But this is no reason why 
we should not recognize even in Sanskrit peculiar weaknesses 


28 BOOK I. 


and corruptions, the perception of which alone will help us to 
the correct use of this speech in the science of language. Even 
the sounds of Sanskrit must not directly be taken as the 
starting-point for comparison. Two classes of consonants, 
the linguals and the palatals, as is now universally admitted, 
arose after the separation of the languages. The recognition 
of these facts was arrived at only gradually, and examples of 
the misuse of the palatals occur even in the latest writings on 
the subject. Of the real character of the palatal sounds the 
essay of Rud. von Raumer on ‘Aspiration und Lautver- 
schiebung, now reprinted in his ‘Gesammelte sprachwis- 
senschaftliche Schriften’ (1863), gave for the first time a 
complete account, which has since been supplemented by 
Ascoli’s comprehensive and thorough investigations (‘Glotto- 
logie, i. p. 87, Germ. trans.). Raumer has clearly pointed out 
that # and g are nothing but the gutturals & and g affected by 
7 sounded after them (p. 35), a view further developed and 
established by Schleicher, ‘Zur vergleichenden Sprachen- 
geschichte, p. 1388. Pott found, in the ‘Protean’ form of 
several words and roots that occur in Sanskrit with palatal 
consonants, a reason for ascribing to these sounds a great 
27 antiquity. Answering to the Skt. katvdras is found the 
Greek récoapes, Dor. wéropes, Lat. quattuor, Goth. fidvdr, 
Church-Slavonic ¢éetyrije, Erse cethir, Kymr. petguar. As 
long as the customary pronunciation of # in Sanskrit words 
as tsch was held to be the original one, it certainly appeared 
probable that this tsch was preserved in Slavonic as well as 
in Sanskrit, that in Ionic Greek it left behind it its first com- 
ponent ¢, while elsewhere it appeared as a guttural or a labial. 
But we had no need to go farther than the Lithuanian keturt 
to have a doubt raised as to this view. Here the pure & 
appears, and seeing that beyond doubt Lithuanian is a near 
relative of Slavonic, the Lith. setwrt proves that before the 
separation of the Lithuanian from the Slavonic, and con- 
sequently long after the beginning of the general separa- 
tion of the languages, the double sound ¢sch did not exist, 
and that in consequence the coincidence of the Slavonic with 
the pronunciation now in vogue in Sanskrit is pure accident. 
Besides, this old explanation of the ‘Protean form’ loses all 


INTRODUCTION. 29 


probability from the fact that, in accordance with the now 
ascertained pronunciation of the palatals, we find in them no 
trace of a #—much less then of a p,—and that even such k’s 
and g’s as do not appear in Sanskrit as & and g, reappear in 
the related languages in the form of k, qu, 7 and 7m, e.g. Skt. 
ki-m=Gr. ri, Ose. pi-d, Lat. qui-d; Skt. gakrt=Gr. jap, 
Lat. yecur. Hence, Bopp too, who was before of a different 
opinion, pronounces in the second edition of his ‘Comparative 
Grammar,’ § 14, for the view that the said sounds in Sanskrit 
arose originally from the gutturals!. 

The case of the palatal sibilant denoted by the sign ¢ 
differs somewhat from that of the palatal tenuis and media. 
As to the pronunciation of the sound various opinions are still 
held. Kuhn (in Hoefer’s ‘Zeitschrift fiir die Wissenschaft der 
Sprache, ii. p. 166 ff.) inclines to that of the German ch in mich, 
and Schleicher (‘Compendium?,’ p. 17) agrees with him. Ebel 
on the contrary (‘ Zeitschr.’ xiii. 276) and Max Miller (‘ Lectures’ 
ii. 1382) hold ¢ to be a true sibilant, which the former identifies 
with the Polish ¢. See Ascoli, ‘Glottologie, i. p. 169. How- 
ever this may be, it is quite certain that the Indic ¢, where 
it corresponds to a k, has arisen from a related explosive by a 
weakening of the sound, and that there is no possibility that 
the opposite process has occurred—that the & has arisen from 28 
the ¢. It is not of course to be denied that corresponding to 
the Sanskrit ¢ there sometimes appears in the related lan- 
guages—by no means in Greek alone—in one or two rare 
cases the dental sibilant, and in Greek its usual representative 
before a vowel at the beginning of a word, the spiritus asper ; 
e.g. in cvagura-s (socer)=éxupd-s for oFexupd-s, Lat. socer for 
svecer, Goth. svathra, Ch. Sl. svekra% (No. 20). In such cases 
also, however, we must without doubt charge the Sanskrit, and 
not the Greek or the other related languages, with the cor- 
ruption of the sound; and this corruption surprises us the 
less because this very letter s in Sanskrit is in other cases 
also corrupted in various ways, since it regularly changes 
after other sounds than that of a or @ to sh, and at the end of 


1 We shall come back on p. 459 ff. to several questions that are 
allied to this one. 


30 BOOK Tf. 


a word, under certain conditions, into the aspirate h called 
visarga; while in the middle of a word it more often be- 
comes r. The letter ¢ therefore has two different values for 
the comparative philologist—either that of a k—as is much 
more frequently the case—or, in far fewer instances, that of 
ans. This is essentially the view of Bopp as well, according 
to his treatment of the subject in § 2la of his ‘Comparative 
Grammar’ (second edit.). For the question as to the repre- 
sentatives in the other languages of this ¢ which answers 
to a Gk. « and a Lat. c, and the latest literature about this 
important subject, I refer to pp. 87 ff. 

The Sanskrit laws of sound have been treated to a still 
greater extent as the starting-point for comparison by Benfey. 
There is found in Sanskrit a series of stems ending in ksh 
which are usually regarded as roots,—e.g. raksh ‘servare, 
uksh ‘humectare, vaksh ‘crescere. Benfey himself acknow- 
ledges that these have arisen from shorter stems, or roots in 
the narrower sense of the word, by the addition of an s 
(‘Hallische Litteraturzeitung, 1838, p. 316). Here and there in 
the related languages the shorter as well as the longer form 
appears, e.g. Gk. dAe& by the side of aAk (No. 7), Gk. av& by the 
side of the Lat. aug (No. 159). Hence it is reasonable to 
suppose that the lengthened form existed side by side with 
the shorter one before the separation of the languages. Now 
it happens also in some cases that only the longer form has 
survived in Sanskrit, and only the shorter in Greek; e.g. by 
the side of the Skt. wksh ‘humectare’ Gk. br in dy-pé-s (No. 
158), Skt. bhaksh ‘comedere’ by the side of the Gk. gar in 
g~ayeiv (No. 408). In such cases Benfey (ut supra, 317) is 
pleased to derive the simple Greek sound from the doubled 
Sanskrit one, while before him Pott certainly got at the truth 
in assuming in such cases that the Greeks had kept the purer 
root-form, and that consequently the Indians had lost the 
shorter forms ug, bhag, although the latter root occurs with a 
somewhat different meaning in bhag (sortiri, obtinere). 

29 The Sanskrit A too cannot be reckoned an original sound : 
h—except where, as in several cases has certainly happened, 
a change of vocal-organ has taken place (A for dh or bh)— 
points to an old gh, and this is the value it bears in Compara- 


INTRODUCTION. ol 


tive Philology. When then, in spite of this, not only Benfey 
(i. 35), but Pott and Bopp as well, hold it allowable to com- 
pare Greek roots ending in vowels with Sanskrit ones ending 
in h, “because h can easily drop away,’ we must object most 
decidedly. Before the separation of the languages, it was not 
h but gh that stood here, and even if we were to venture so 
far as to place the Gk. di-aiv-w (Pott, i.) p. 282, differently 
explained W. ili. 863) by the side of the Skt. dih (oblinere), 
for the h in which (= gh) the Lat. pol-ling-o and the Lith. 
daz-y-ti (to dip in) give the regular representative, we should 
have to regard not A but x as dropped—a loss of which there 
are, it is true, some examples, but only when a consonant 
follows. But we should be distinctly wrong if we were to 
follow Benfey (i. 72) in assuming, from the Skt. ruh (grow) 
and rd-p-dja-mi (cause to grow), a stem rdp, or even rap for 
the allied languages also. In so doing we should be pro- 
nouncing corruptions of sound peculiar to Sanskrit to be 
older than the separation of the languages. 

In Sanskrit there is an 7 which is a lengthened form of 
what elsewhere is a. In Greek, on the other hand, the spheres 
of the vowels a and. are so far apart that ¢ is very seldom 
connected with an older a, and when it is it is generally 
through the medium of an «. Consequently, we must never 
expect to find an. in Greek as the representative of a Sanskrit 
7 that has arisen from an a—a mistake to which again Benfey 
is specially inclined, e.g. when he finds traces of the Skt. tksh, 
an amplified form, peculiar to the Indic branch, of the root a& 
(Gk. 6m) ‘see, in the Greek ick, éioxw (i. 233), and even sees 
in the diminutive suffix -icko (i. 235) and in the verbal-ending 
-iaxm representatives of this same iksh, which beyond all 
doubt did not exist at the time of the separation of the 
languages. In opposition to such attempts—ventured on by 
Benfey again even in the seventh volume of the ‘ Zeitschrift’ — 
we cannot be too strict in holding fast by the rule that the 
Indo-Germanic primitive form arrived at by proper combina- 
tions, and not the special form of a single language, 1s to be 
placed at the head of every comparison of words. 

This more strict and consistent method of employing Sanskrit 
in the comparison with the allied languages has been gradually 


3 


=) 


32 BOOK I. 


gaining ground, and has especially been pursued most rigor- 
ously by Schleicher in his ‘Compendium der vergleichenden 
Grammatik’ (1861, 1862, second edit. 1866, third edit. 1871). 
From this more correct view Sanskrit itself too will gain 
something. Now that this language has for a long time 
served exclusively to throw light on the others, the light 
begins to shine back from the other languages upon Sanskrit. 
This is quite the normal course of the developement of science, 
which follows, as has rightly been said, not a straight line but 
a spiral one. The preposterous idea that Sanskrit must have 
preserved in every case alike the oldest form, would be most 
ruinous to the examination of words, even apart from phonetic 
laws. As regards the meanings of words, thanks to the noble 
labours of Bohtlingk and Roth—whose great Petersburg 
Dictionary was finished in 1875—and to Grassmann’s excellent 
‘Worterbuch zum Rig-Veda, we are now in a better condition 
than the students of the ‘classical languages, of which the 
lexicons, in spite of all diligence in making collections, are in 
many respects lamentably deficient. Etymology too has gained 
much from the same source. Still there are many words 
used only in the Vedas which give the same sort of difficulty 
to the interpreter as do certain much-discussed Homeric 
yAoooaut. Under all circumstances the original meaning of a 
word or root cannot be ascertained without a comparison of 
its often variously modified use in the kindred languages. 
The luxuriance of the Greek, and the definiteness of the Latin 
languages, are most valuable sources of information on this 
head : nor should the value of living languages be underrated 
for this purpose. Whenever we have shown the identity of a 
German, Slavonic, or Lithuanian word with a Greek one, the 
living use of the word at the present time is often the surest 
guide in our search for its real fundamental meaning. Hence 
I cannot accept the rule given by Pictet (‘Origines,’ i. 23) 
‘partir toujours du mot sanscrit s’il existe. Pott has rightly 
paid greater attention to the Western languages, and Benfey 
has done the same in the second part of his ‘ Wurzellexicon’ 
to a greater extent than in the first. Thanks to Miklosich, 
Schleicher, and others, we are now enabled to make more use 
of Slavonic and Lithuanian, whose wealth and natural prolific- 


INTRODUCTION. 33 


ness promise us a plentiful harvest, while our own Teutonic 
languages have been already laid open before us by Jacob 
Grimm in such a way as specially to favour etymological 
research. 


6. 


But in another respect also Sanskrit has been made the 3, 
standard for the other languages in a manner which is not 
justifiable. The truth, confessedly fundamental, that Sanskrit 
is only to be regarded as a sister-language, with especially 
distinct family features, has often been overlooked in practice. 
Tt may be regarded as established that neither Sanskrit, nor 
even the Indo-Germanic primitive language, which we can 
only discover by combinations, stands to the individual 
languages of our stock in a relation similar to that which 
Latin holds to the Romance languages. The latter are related 
to the mother-tongue in such a manner that, between the time 
in which Latin was a living language and the developement 
of the daughter-tongues, there was a loss of the sense of 
the nature of the language through which its structure— 
because of the interruption in the national tradition—suffered 
not a little, and its form received important alterations’. 
Even the relation which sounds in the daughter-languages 
bear to those in Latin betray an important diminution of the 
instinctive correctness of articulation. We have only to 
remember the numerous instances of weakening: e.g. of c to g 
(Ital. Zuogo = locum), of t to d (Ital. padre = patrem), of p to 6 
(Fr. abeille = apicula): and the frequent rejection of conso- 
nants (Fr. pére, liew). Nobody will venture to deny that the 
Fr. ouir originated in audire; but who would venture, on this 
analogy, to assume a similar mutilation for the Gr. dio, 
whereby it might be brought into connexion with audio ? 
Indeed by this very phonetic process the inflexions of Latin 
have to a large extent disappeared, and in compensation for 


1 For the conception of ‘daughter-languages’ cp. Steinthal A. 
‘Litteraturz.’ 1849, p. 368: ‘Archiv fiir neuere Sprachen, xxxvi. p. 
129, and Pott, ‘ Die Ungleichheit der menschlichen Rassen,’ p. 214 f 

D 


34 BOOK T. 


the case-endings &c. of whose use the language has thus been 
deprived, new expedients have been introduced. Prepositions, 
robbed of their full original sound, and with weakened 
meaning, are compounded with each other (Fr. avant = ab 
ante, devant = de ab ante) and with pronominal forms (Ital. 
del = de illo). Thus the most various disfigurations arise. 
Frequently a new word is formed of two, three, or even more 
words welded together; very often a virtue has to be made of 
necessity, and in too many cases we notice in words how they 
fashioned themselves out of the ruins of the older languages, 
in the first instance rather as conventional aids, until the new 
germs developed, and by degrees idioms appeared, which in 
82 their way are again deserving of admiration. That Ital. 
medesimo arose from -met ipsissimus, Fr. dans from de intus 
(Pott, ‘ Zeitschr. f. vergl. Sprachf.’ i. 311), no reasonable man 
will doubt. But if we are recommended to assume similar 
mutilations, in order to refer Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin forms 
to their origin, this, in my opinion, is to confuse with each 
other essentially different periods of language. For from the 
establishment of the primitive Indo-Germanic language, so far 
as we can see, down to the time when Greek and Latin reached 
their highest perfection, there was an uninterrupted tradition 
which makes us @ priort disinclined to rash attempts to refer 
forms to elements completely confused and disfigured. Fora 
time so early in the life of language as that before the separa- 
tion of the various tongues all the conditions are wanting, by 
which such mutilations are explicable in younger languages. 
But further, the attempt to break up apparently simple forms 
and roots has been made almost wholly by means of Sanskrit, 
and in such a manner as to involve the assumption that all 
the little weaknesses of Sanskrit were to be found existing 
before the separation of languages. This is the point of a 
difference between Pott and myself which, after my objections 
in the first edition of this book, led to a fresh discussion of 
this question on his part in the second volume of the second 
edition of his ‘Etym. Forsch.’ (p. 293 ff.), and to a short reply 
on my side in the preface to the second volume of the first 
edition of this work. Leaving everything personal as much 
as possible on one side, I wish, without entering into the very 


INTRODUCTION. 35 


numerous details, simply to point out here briefly the general 
character of the process, and to adduce the reasons which, in 
addition to the one already mentioned, prevent me, and not me 
alone, from adopting it. 

The most usual case is that in which it is believed that in 
the initial letter of a root a more or less mutilated prefix may 
be recognized, and that therefore it is allowable to derive this 
root from a shorter one. Thus most of the Sanskrit preposi- 
tions were used as prefixes to lengthen roots beginning with a 
vowel, in just the way which the older Etymology ventured 
upon in its confused fashion. Because in Sanskrit the prefix 
api = Gr. émi commonly becomes pi by aphaeresis, therefore 
Pott even now (1i?. 301, ep. W. i. 428) finds no difficulty in 
deriving pifig, which, besides other meanings, is asserted in 
Indian lists of roots to have also that of ‘ painting,’ though in 
reality this meaning appears to have been invented merely to 
explain the adjective piiiddra-s ‘golden yellow, as well as the 
Lat. pingere, from api-aig (oblinere) or (and the very hesitation 
shows the doubtfulness of the assumption) from api-masg 33 
(tmmergere), and in the same way to assume similar mutila- 
tions for other prefixes commencing with the vowel a. Where, 
for instance, apa = a7é suits better, an inconvenient p is 
referred to this, instead of to apt, e.g. papd-s ‘bad’ to apa-ap, 
i.e. to fail to reach, to wander off [abgelangen, abirren] (p. 305). 
This, however, by no means prevents Pott from explaining 
conjecturally this very ap, which occurs in the form ap in the 
Lat. ap-iscor, through d-api-i to mean ‘to go to this in addi- 
tion, in which the assumed root 7 has entirely disappeared, or 
as Pott expresses himself, “has gone the way of all flesh.” In 
the same way an initial Skt. bh or Gr. ¢ is referred to abhi? 
(bei), e.g. Skt. bhrag = Gr. oder, Lat. fulg, to abhi-rag, to 
shine ‘upon ’—an initial dh or Gr. 6 to adhi (over, upon) e.g. 
Skt. diyjai, meditari, with Gr. Oedouar to adhi-i (tévar), adire, 
(p. 308),—an initial n to ni (sub, de), e.g. vaim to ni-vas (vas 
‘to dwell’) (p. 808),—an initial d to ut ‘upwards’ which, ac- 
cording to certain phonetic laws peculiar to Sanskrit, becomes 


1 Now the difficulty occurs to Pott himself (W. i. 421), ‘ Unfor- 
tunately there is no trustworthy example of an ed: in Greek.’ 
D2 


36 BOOK T. 


d before many sounds, e.g. Skt. duh ‘draw’ from ut-vah ‘eve- 
here’ (p. 314, cp. W. iii. 1023), an initial v to wi ‘one from 
another, e.g. Skt. wrdh ‘crescere, from the equivalent rdh 
(i. 250), Gr. fe in feo Oac from Skt. v7 ‘desiderare, and this from 
vi-i (Ebel, ‘ Zeitschrift,’ iv. 164), or when convenient to ava 
‘away, eg. Skt. vah, Gk. dy in éyos, Lat. veh in veho, to 
ava-haé ‘to go away, ‘to make to go away’ (Pott, i1. 283 
withdrawn ii”. 316), an initial s to sa, sam ‘with, e.g. snusha 
=OHG. snuor, Gk. vvds, Lat. nurus to sam-vas ‘to dwell with’ 
(ii?. 800, W. ii. 2, 478), an initial sy to the prefix su =Gr. ed; 
e.g. svdd (gustare) from su-d-ad ‘to eat well’ (gut anessen) 
(ii. 319). It is easy to see how far it is possible to go in 
this direction; for as the meaning of these prefixes can easily 
be turned about this way and that way, and as writers dealt 
freely in assumptions of the most various elisions and pho- 
netic changes in prefixes and verbal roots alike, any word 
could easily be referred by such means to a stem which finds 
its counterpart in fuller or abbreviated form in Sanskrit. 

It is true that in this respect purely Greek Etymology 
does not lag behind comparative Etymology. Thus Doder- 
lein (‘Hom. Gloss.’ § 2272) says, “as dvd is shortened into 
a, kat& to xa- and k-, ex to é- and x-, did to ¢a- and o-, 
so also t7é is curtailed into &:” and in § 2463 even makes 
the o which he supposes to originate in did, take a “leap for 

34 life,’ in order to change the dsameAdyrou into Medacyot. But 
here we must not fail to notice that Pott distinguishes many 
of these combinations from certainly recognized analogies, as 
being mere hypotheses, so that the greater number of his 
comparisons can be easily separated from these and retain 
their full value. The more recent students of comparative 
philology have for the most part passed over these attempts 
in silence, but some are reluctant entirely to give up the 
right to avail themselves of such a method of procedure 1. 


1 So Scherer (‘Zur Gesch. d. deutschen Sprache,’ p. 328) says “in 
cases of resemblance in sound and meaning.” But where can we find 
a clear case of this kind? Pott (W. iil. 672) believes that he has © 
discovered one. The Vedic verb bhishak-tt ‘it heals’ (with bhishag 
‘healing,’ the derived bhishag-jati ‘he heals’ and bhéshag-a-m ‘ medi- 
cine’) he refers with Pictet to (a)bhi-sag, for which the only demon- 


INTRODUCTION. 37 


What are the reasons, then, for which I hold that I am com- 
pelled to oppose not merely particular instances, but this 
whole style of analysis? Pott appeals to the analogy of the 
more modern languages. That the s of the It. s-aggio has 
arisen from ex we believe, because in exagium we have the 
Latin word before us, because the other Romance languages 
(essaz) still show traces of the e, and because the omission of 
the vowel in a syllable which is known to have been un- 
accented has every analogy on its side. The same sibilant 
(=Skt. sa) is common in the more modern Slavonic languages 
in the meaning ‘with.’ Hence that e.g. the Bohem. s-bor ‘as- 
sembly’ is derived from s (Ch. Sl. s#=Skt. sa ‘ with’) and rt. 
ber (=Skt. bhar, pep, Lat. fer) and that it originally meant 
much the same as con-fer-ence is evident. If any one should 
doubt that the case was the same with the g of the Germ. 
g-lauben, he would have to be referred to the OHG. gelouben, 
galoubo (Grimm, ‘Gr.’ ii. 699), just as for the modern b-leiben 
we have the OHG. pi-lip-an. But what right have we to 
argue from these precedents in late periods of language to 
the earliest, to propose combinations for which all the inter- 
mediate forms, and all the criteria of probability are wanting 
which were present in the instances just adduced, and to 
assert a composition with prepositions even where there is no 
strong motive either in the sounds or in the meaning of the 
form concerned to refer it to such elements? From the root 
ap which, as we saw, Pott by a bold hypothesis makes a com- 35 
pound, we arrive at the shorter form ap, which is the base 
e.g. of the Skt. ap-as=Lat. opus. This ap, just as much as the 
rt. tap ‘burn’ (rég-pa), bears quite the character of being 
original ; it occurs plainly in ap-iscor, ap-tus. Just as little 
is there anything in the rt. pifig (whose very existence 


strated meaning is ‘to curse.’ It is only through the hypothetical 
intermediate stage ‘to exorcise’ that the two ideas are linked together. 
Hence in the Pet. Dict. this etymology is not to be found. But even 
allowing it to be correct, this would only prove that, at the time 
when Indic and Eranic were still one language (for the Zend baéshaza 
means ‘ medicine’), a verbal compound became a stem used as a root, 
not that this could have taken place in the far earlier Indo-Germanic 


period. 


38 BOOK I. 


is not satisfactorily proved) pointing to composition. The 
same is true of the rt. svad (avd-dv-w, 40-0-nat). All these 
roots are treated in their inflexion just like those which even 
Pott regards as primitive. They are lengthened mostly by 
expansion or vowel-intensification, sometimes by nasalisation 
(ap, svdd cFfavd), means, which language is accustomed to 
use for the formation of words only in the case of actual 
roots. Again that such simple ideas as ‘to attain,’ ‘to 
make gay,’ ‘to taste,’ should have been formed only by the 
intellectual method of composition will seem very improb- 
able to any one who believes with Max Miiller (‘ Lectures,’ 
ii. 66) that the material of language arose rather by “a 
poetical fiat” than by analytic thought. But we have other 
objections. 

The process which we have been describing tacitly assumes 
that all the prefixes found in use in Sanskrit not only existed 
before the separation of the languages, but existed as prefixes, 
and precisely in their Sanskrit form. But this is an ex- 
tremely bold assumption, which we can never admit. It 
seems to me very improbable that significant roots, the proper 
substance of language, for the most part owed their existence 
in the first instance to a process of decay, while the little 
particles, which—whether pronominal (Bopp, ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 
487) or, as Weber holds (‘Indische Studien,’ ii. 406) with 
Jacob Grimm (‘Worterbuch,’ i. 50) and Schoemann (‘ Rede- 
theile, p. 142) of the same origin as verbal roots, or, as Pott 
will have it, swt generis—in any case have the function of 
indicating and demonstrating rather than denoting, were ex- 
tremely old, older than many of the most common and 
indispensable verbal roots. Even Pott’s learned and acute 
treatment of the prepositions in the first volume of the ‘ Et. 
Forsch.’ (second edition) has not convinced me of this. We 
do not find by any means all the Sanskrit prepositions recur- 
ring in the other languages in their separate use: @ e.g. and 
ava can only be shown to exist in Sanskrit and Zend: api 
undoubtedly corresponds to Gr. emi, but whilst api in San- 
skrit very frequently loses its a, there is not a single Greek 
word in which wc unmistakeably stands for émf Even in 
Sanskrit the aphaeresis of a@ is by no means usual, except in 


INTRODUCTION. 39 


the case of api. Pott himself states that abhi, in spite of the 36 
fact that this preposition takes the accent on the last syllable, 
never loses its a in the living language; but this does not at 
all prevent him from assuming, for the far earlier period when 
the languages were not yet separated, this mutilation which 
was still unknown in the period of language which can be 
ascertained historically, and from regarding, as we saw, an 
initial bh as the remains of an abhi which early fell into bad 
ways. It so happens that Greek is especially conservative in 
the retention of an initial vowel; a circumstance which we 
have to thank for the preservation of the augment in which 
this language has the advantage over most of her sisters. 
Thus su (ep. O. Ir. su-, so-) is derived, as the Greek éi shows, 
from asu, for it is only thus that we can explain the two 
forms, which are related to each other precisely as the San- 
skrit strong stem of the participle from the root as ‘to be,’ 
sant, is related to the Gr. éovt, i.e. ec-ovt or as-ant. Hence 
we must assume that, before the separation, asu and not su was 
the prevalent form, and, as we nowhere find in Greek a trace 
of & for ev, «v, we cannot use this form at all in comparative 
grammar. ‘The case is in no way altered by the fact that the 
initial vowel has disappeared also in Old Irish; nor would 
any traces of a su in the German and Italian families of 
languages, which Bugge (‘Ztschr. xx. 84) believes he can 
point out, be able to perplex us in our assumption of an Indo- 
Germanic asu. Of a preposition vi denoting separation we 
have no instance in Greek: in Latin the wi of vi-dua (Skt. 
vi-dhava ‘husbandless2’), the vé of vé-cors, vé-sanus, ve-stig- 


1 Other instances of aphaeresis in Sanskrit words assumed with 
great confidence by Pott, are by no means admitted by other Sanskrit 
scholars. The editors of the Pet. Dict. doubt the very first example 
which is maintained against me on p. 299, taskara-s ‘robber,’ ac- 
cording to Pott=atas-kara-s ‘ carrying away.’ 

2 This very simple and often repeated etymology of the words 
which correspond so exactly to the Goth. viduvd, the Ch. SI. vidova 
(Bopp. ‘ Vgl. Gr. iii. 506), an etymology which I myself once regarded 
as a sure one, is called in question in the Petersb. Dict., on the 
ground that dhava-s is too young a word; and the authors of the 
dictionary prefer to regard it as a word formed from vidhava (see 


40 BCOK I. 


iu-m has been regarded as the representative of this vi. But 
even in his first edition (i. 127 f.) Pott thought that this pre- 
37 position showed itself most commonly in the form di, dis in 
Latin, and as dé:é in Greek, and that it was to be referred to 
the root of the numeral ‘two,’ dvi. With this view Bopp also 
agrees in his Glossary s.v. vi (he gives a different explanation 
in ‘Vgl. Gr.’ iii. 506), and hardly anything can be said against it ; 
for that the same root appears in Latin sometimes with and 
sometimes without d is shown, beyond the possibility of doubt, 
by the comparison of duo and bis, i.e. duis with vi-ginti. But, 
even though we find as the representative of vi-ginti for dvi- 
gintt the Dor. Fixari, also with the loss of d, yet the ‘ particle’ 
vi is only represented in Greek by dvd. And if we look into 
the matter more closely, there is even a striking similarity in 
the use of wt and the Gr. did; vi-Gid is dlayvevat, vi-~a (per- 
meare) duéva, vi-vd (perflare) duajvai, and the Pet. Dict. quotes 
passages from the Revéda in which vi with the accusative © 
means ‘through.’ We can see that vz has the two meanings 
‘in two’ from which comes ‘apart,’ Lat. dis, and ‘between,’ 
‘through, just like did. As for the form, I regard di-é as an 
instrumental case of the stem dvi which appears in its simple 
form in wi, and expanded in dis by the same s, by which 
apis is expanded from audi, e€ from ex, Lat. abs from ab, 
and in which possibly we have an analogue of the genitive 
suffix as, Gr. os (Weber, ‘ Ind. Stud.’ ii. 406). Hence, though 
we may have preserved, certainly in Latin!, and perhaps also 


Pictet’s objections to this view, ii. 342).—The Sanskrit word is now 
referred by Roth (‘Ztschr.’ xix. 223) to a rt. vidh (windh) ‘to be 
empty,’ ‘to be faulty,’ which he gets from the Rgvéda. This, at all 
events, agrees excellently with the Goth. vidu-vairna ‘ orphaned,’ and 
with 7i0-e0-s ‘a bachelor,’ which had been already compared by Benfey. 
n arose from a prothetic « owing to the influence of the digamma. 
Cp. npepa No. 454. 

* In Latin a remarkable trace of the fuller form dvi (in addition 
to the numeral adverb bis mentioned above, which, when compared 
with dis, necessarily presupposes a Graeco-Italic duis) is preserved 
in bivira (i.e. dui-vira), which Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 400 has pointed 
out, used, according to Nonius (ii. p. 56 ed. Gerlach), by Varro in 
the sense of vidwa, Hence even Latin in its earlier period was not 


INTRODUCTION. 4] 


in some other branches of the Indo-Germanic family, traces of 
a prefix analogous to the Skt. vi, we cannot regard the 
weakening of dvi into vi as older than the separation of the 
languages ; and as in Greek there is no single instance that 
can be clearly proved of a prepositional fr with the force of 
Skt. vt. or the Lat. vé, it appears to me unlawful to make 
any use whatever of this Sanskrit preposition in Greek 
Ktymology. | 

An additional objection to the view here under discussion 
is to be found in the history of Prepositions. Was the con- 
nexion of prepositions with verbal roots in early times really 
so close, that new stems could easily arise thus? Nothing 
entitles us to make the assumption. On the contrary, it is 38 
an established fact that prepositions were originally, without 
exception, adverbs of direction, in which we can sometimes 
still recognize clearly the case-forms. Prepositions were there- 
fore at first quite independent words, though afterwards they 
lost their independence in two ways; on the one hand, becoming 
united with verbal stems as prefixes, on the other, serving as 
prepositions (in the usual sense of the word) joined to cases, 
and expressing the manifold relations in a sentence. Language 
itself shows the composition with verbal stems to be but loose 
by the fact—in which Sanskrit and Greek agree—that it 
places the augment and the reduplication between the pre- 
position and the verb-form (‘Greek Verb,’ p. 94). These 
elements then, for these languages, form in all preterite 
tenses and in the perfect a wall of partition between the 
preposition and the verb, which evidently must have made it 
a much more difficult thing for the two parts to coalesce. It 
was otherwise e.g. in the Germanic languages. Here this 
increased difficulty did not present itself at all, or to a very 
unimportant extent, so that the Goth. fraitan (NHG. fressen) 
may be derived without hesitation from fra-itan (ver-essen) 
(Pott, ii?. 313). But in Greek the exceptions to the normal 


as yet inclined to the weakening of dvi into vi, which has been 
assumed with so much confidence for the earliest times, and on the 
ground of which scholars have thought themselves justified in regard- 
ing the initial » of many stems as the remains of this particle (cp. 
Pott ii”, 325). 


4.2 BOOK I. 


position of the augment and the reduplication alike, such as 
exdbioa, nvecyouny, are wholly post-Homeric ; so they do not 
in the least diminish the weight of the fact adduced as regards 
the earliest period of our stock of languages. And verbal 
compounds like the assumed su-ad,1.e. *evedey were altogether 
unknown to Greek, by a delicate and, as we may venture to 
conjecture, old law of the language. Primitive verbal stems 
have in the Indo-Germanic languages generally very little 
tendency to form firm combinations with other kinds of 
words. Ludwig Lange, in his ‘Andeutungen tber Ziel und 
Methode der syntaktischen Forschung’ (‘ Verhandlungen der 
Gottinger Philologenversammlung 1852,’ p. 104 f.), has carried 
out more completely the observations which we have made 
here as to the developement of prepositions, and has shown 
incontrovertibly, by a computation of their proportionate oc- 
currence, that the extremely extensive use of prepositions as 
prefixes only presents itself in Epic Sanskrit, whilst Vedic 
Sanskrit in this respect approaches more nearly to the state 
of things in the Homeric poems. Hence, as we see in the 
earliest monuments of the Indian and Greek languages that 
the prepositions still showed so lttle tendency to enter into 
39 composition’, reflection shows that we are by no means 
justified in considering the use of prepositions as prefixes to 
be earlier than the separation of the languages, far less in 
assuming that a large number of verbal roots had already so 
entirely coalesced with prefixes that new words could be 
formed from them, which were no longer felt to be compounds, 
and indeed not individual nouns merely but widely ramifying 
verbal stems bearing the most primitive stamp. The chron- 
ology of linguistic science, that is, the distinction between 
the various periods of the life of language, is entirely opposed 
to this assumption. The number of compound words which 
belong originally to more languages than one, is altogether 


* This view of the preposition (with which Sonne also agrees 
‘Ztschr.’ xiv. 5) is of course at variance also with the assumption that 
in the case-endings we have mutilated prepositions, a theory which 
Pott e. g. holds to be fully made out in the case of the suffix bhz 
(Gr. gs, gw). But who knows whether a-bhi is not rather itself 
a case-form of the pronominal stem a ? 


INTRODUCTION. 43 


extremely small, and even in the case of these there is often a 
doubt whether they belong to the common inherited stock or 
to the store that has been subsequently acquired. And to 
return to prepositional compounds, it might possibly be shown 
that there is a considerable likeness between the use of them 
in two languazes, at all events in languages so nearly related 
as Latin and Greek; but even here this is the case but seldom. 
The coinage of such words evidently belongs, as a rule, to the 
period in which each language pursued its independent de- 
velopement; and the same holds good of the mutilations of 
prefixes of the kind; and though examples of these can of 
course be adduced in abundance in Sanskrit, and the Teutonic 
and Slavonic languages, yet, being entirely independent of 
each other, they certainly made their appearance a long time 
after the establishment of the use of such prefixes. In Greek 
and Latin even these phenomena are rare, and especially in 
Greek the sense of the pg a of prepositions kept its 
vitality in a high degree. 

There is still less probability in the supposed instances of 
composition with the interrogative stem ka (Pott, ii? 426 ff). 
By a peculiar idiom of Sanskrit various forms of the interro- 
gative pronoun, especially kim (quid), are compounded with 
various substantives with the force of astonishment, e.g. k7- 
raga ‘what king!’ i.e. what a king! both in a good and ina 
bad sense. In the same way it is asserted that the uninflected 
stem ka or /a& enters into compounds, e.g. kd-rava-s=corvu-s, 
supposed to be from ka and rava-s ‘sound’ (cp. radvi-s, rau- 
cu-s), ‘having what a sound!’ (Bopp, ‘GL’). But even for 


Sanskrit this method of composition is not quite established. : 


In the Petersb. Dict. ii. 2 we find these words: “even if we 
are not to deny absolutely such a method of composition, 
yet we are bound to notice that this explanation has in 
some cases been used too freely.” Hence it appears to me 
more than venturesome to assume the existence of such a 
specifically Indian method of expression in time before the 
separation of languages; and I am not convinced even by 
Pictet, who is fond of the use of this instrument of etymology, 
and who (ii. 226) finds in it “un charactere de naiveté, qui 
s’accorde parfaitement avec la nature d’un idiome primitif.” 


44 BOOK I. 


In an exclamation of astonishment there lies hidden a re- 
flection which has merely the appearance of natveté, but 
which really contains a judgement, that is, an element of con- 
ception. That simple notions which obtrude themselves 
directly on the perception of men!, should have found their 
expression by means of such exclamations, which became as 
it were fixed and passed into names, I regard as wholly im- 
probable. Hence we cannot for a moment conceive that the 
Lat. caecu-s = Goth. haih-s (one-eyed) is ‘quo oculo praeditus!’ as 
Pott holds (i'. 166, ep. ii2. 445) (ka-ocu-s), nor, on the other 
hand, can we regard it as a compound of Skt. éka ‘ one’ and 
oco, the stem of oculu-s, a derivation which Pott gives as also 
possible, and which Bopp considers certain (‘ Vergl. Gr.’ ii”. 
59). For of this eka, which is itself undoubtedly a derived 
form from the stem which occurs in Sanskrit also as é-vd, 
and in Zend as aéva (Pott, ‘ Zahlmethode,’ 149), there is 
no trace to be found in any of the allied languages, to 
say nothing of the fact that we have to assume a very 
rare mutilation which cuts out the very kernel of the word. 
This éka again we hold to be only Sanskrit, not Indo- 
Germanic. 

My objections to the prefix-theory Pott meets (p. 301) by 
adducing the existence of “not a few pairs of roots with 
simpler and fuller initial sounds” side by side. He con- 
tends against the view that by mere accident two roots 
with the meaning ‘shine’ like Skt. ray and bhrag, differing 
only in their initial letters, came into being independently 
of each other. But there are pairs and triplets of roots of 
the kind, which even Pott cannot refer to one and the 
same origin, e.g. Skt. jag and bhag ‘to honour;’ in the case 
of which he admits of ‘accident’ (11”. 836), am, gam, kram three 
‘verba eundi, where the prepositions leave us in the lurch, ad 
‘edere, kshad ‘frangere, an ‘spirare,’ stan ‘suspirare. Or are 
we, in order to favour the prefix-theory, to explain the last of 


1 As an instance we may take Skt. kapdla-s=xepady, which 
Pictet breaks up into ka-pdéla-s, and translates quel protectewr, add- 
ing “on ne saurait mieux charactériser le réle natural du crane” 
(i, 308, ii. 305). 


INTRODUCTION. 45 


these by sa + ati + an ‘together exceedingly to blow?’ Then 
we might perhaps find some help for jag in a ni-ag ‘to move 
oneself down, and for bhag in abhi-ag ‘to move oneself up to, 
in something of the sense of mpocxuvetyv. But many will, I 
believe, prefer with me to regard it simply as a fact, which 
after all is not very surprising, that language sometimes 
denotes related conceptions by similar sounds. It is hardly 
worth while reminding the reader that the riddle is often 
solved by the fact that the one form is the earlier, more 
faithfully preserved (e.g. OHG. smilz-u), the other the more 
mutilated (Gr. éAd-o). 


i¢ 


In general the endeavour to break words up into their 
elements has been pushed much too far. The principle that he 
who proves too much proves nothing might be well applied to 
many assertions of comparative philology. In our judgement 
much more is gained if we set a Greek word, together with 
the related and derived words which accompany it in Greek, 
side by side with an actually occurring Sanskrit, Latin, German, 
or Slavonic word, and do so with absolute certainty, than if 
we. lose ourselves in bold hypotheses upon the origin of the 
form which this comparison compels us to give as the root- 
form—without having any firm ground to go upon. Even 
Pott, in his review of Benfey’s ‘ Wurzellexikon’ (‘ Berl. Jahrb. 
1840, p. 623 ff), has uttered a warning against this danger, 
and recommended, for many questions, an honest acknow- 
ledgement of ignorance, in the place of flighty omniscience. 
Besides, the question of the relation of a Greek word to 
a word in the other languages can in practice be very 
satisfactorily answered, without entering upon these ulti- 
mate questions. For instance, that the Greek dcréo-y with 
the Latin os goes back to a stem asti, which in Sanskrit 
is asthi (No. 213), is a fact of interest, which is completely 
established. But to trace back the root-form so recognized 
to its origin is a task which is quite different, and better 
kept distinct. And it seems to me that little is gained by 


4.6 BOOK I. 


such conjectures as that put forward by Bopp in his ‘Glossary,’ 
and approved by Pott, 1%. 296, that this ast? comes from the 
root sta ‘to stand. This can never be proved. Pictet (i. 515) 
gives for the same word, which denotes at the same time the 
42 stone of a fruit, a quite different conjecture, which we shall 
consider under No. 218. In other cases indeed we can go back 
to a root with more certainty. The various names for Spring, 
Gk. éap, Skt. vas-ant-ds, Lat. vé-r, ON. vdr, Ch. Sl. ves-na, 
Lith. vas-aid, find their meeting point in the stem vas. So 
far we can go with certainty. But whether this vas is the 
same as that which we find in Sanskrit, and also, though 
slightly altered in other cognate languages, with the meaning 
of ‘to clothe ’—according to which therefore Spring was desig- 
nated as the clother and adorner of earth (ep. Pictet, i. 101)— 
or a quite distinct vas, which, like the shorter form us, denotes 
burning and shining—which would also well suit the con- 
ception of Spring—it is certainly much harder to determine. 
The second of these two views, defended by Fick, Grassmann, 
and recently by Bergaigne (‘Mém.’ ii. 73), is certainly more 
probable. The root du (No. 547) occurs in Greek as Av in 
Ad-pa, raised into Aov in Aov-w; in Latin as du in lu-o, as lav 
in dav-o; among the Teutonic languages the Old Norse gives 
l6-a (adluo). There we stop short, without entering as Bopp 
does on the question whether this dw is not perhaps merely a 
mutilated form of the root plu, which we find with its initial 
letter well preserved in a number of words in all the cognate 
languages (No. 369), or conjecturing with Pott, i!. 209 (retracted 
W. i. 1137), that by an opposite process this plu in its turn may 
have proceeded from pi=api-lu (to wash upon). The objection 
may be brought against us that we have thus passed by many 
of the most interesting questions, and no one will desire to 
take it upon himself to forbid further investigations for all 
future time. But in this case, as often, we can only make 
advances by limiting the tasks we set ourselves, and above all 
by a careful distinction of that which may be definitely known 
from that which can only be reached by conjectures. Even within 
the narrower circle, which is however quite wide enough, there 
will be no lack of increased enlightenment on many points. 
Science has not for its object the satisfaction of curiosity, or 


INTRODUCTION. 47 


the supply of an arena where more or less ingenious hypo- 
theses may disport themselves, but the extension of the king- 
dom of truth and the confinement of the rule of error within 
narrower limits. 

As a rule, then, we shall not in our combinations proceed 
beyond the forms which clearly present themselves from the 
comparison of words actually occurring in the various lan- 
guages with which we are dealing; but in one respect it will 
be hardly possible to observe strictly the limits which we have 
drawn. I am referring to one of the most difficult questions 
in the investigation of language, the question of the variation 
of roots, or the formation of secondary roots, which, though in 
part far removed from the aims which we are here pursuing, 
yet cannot be left untouched, because it enters into number- 
less individual questions. As to the general idea of a root, 
we may accept the view of Pott (‘Review of Benfey’s Wurzel- 
lexikon’), who calls roots the ultimate material (Grundstoff) of 
language. But if we define roots according to the form in 
which they present themselves in the Indo-Germanic lan- 
guages, we may say that a root is the significant combination 
of sounds! which is left remaining after a given word has been 
stripped of everything formative. Primitive verb-forms are 
best adapted to this. Suppose é-7/-Oe-ro given. Grammar 
points out the particular grammatical force of every other 
part of this form, that is, é¢ denotes that the action les in 
the past, the reduplication syllable 7. denotes the present stem, 
or duration, ro the 3rd sing. mid.; hence 6¢ is evidently the root. 
If we compare (evy-vu-pt, (edEi-s, Cuyd-y with each other, we 


1 We shall be right in saying ‘combination of sounds,’ for the 
only Indo-Germanic root, which appears to consist of a single sound, 
the root 7 (to go) has the smooth breathing before the vowel, a sound 
which is generally left quite out of view in linguistic investigations, 
but very incorrectly. The German alliteration shows most clearly 
that the smooth breathing was not unknown even to the linguistic 
instinct of the unlearned. The recognition of the smooth breathing 
as a real sound is often shown to be important, as in the interchange 
with the spir. asp. in Greek, and in that with 7 and v in the Slavonic 
languages. The assumption of a verbal root a in Heyse’s ‘ System 
der Sprachwissenschaft’ p. 113 rests upon an error. 


48 BOOK I. 


arrive at the root eur, from which these three forms may be 
easily derived, because from the laws of inflexion we can 
point out the meaning of the syllables vv and ju, and from the 
laws of derivation we can explain the suffix 7: (ov) with the 
sign of the nominative s and the suffix o with the sign of the 
accusative v, while in the first two forms we can show that 
the diphthong has arisen from v by intensification or expan- 
sion. The Indian grammarians, whose views were followed at 
first by comparative philology, were so far inconsistent in 
their procedure, that they set down some roots, specially all 
that ended in a, as having a long vowel: dd, pd, std, &. But 
Schleicher (‘ Beitr.’ ii, 92) has shown, by convincing argu- 
ments, that the short vowel, which has long been assigned to 
Greek roots like ga, do, Oe, really belongs to the root. The 
length of the vowel, where it occurs, is to be considered as 
being itself something formative, as raising. Hence I follow 
now this treatment of Schleicher, in favour of which Pott also 
44(W.1i. 1) has expressed himself, though not without reserve, 
and Corssen (i”. 604) more decidedly!. For the future there- 
fore, when it is a question of Indo-Germanic roots, we shall be 
speaking only of roots like da, pa, sta, &c., retaining, however, 
the long vowels in the case of Sanskrit roots. But this definition 
of a root needs still further limitation. If we were to break 
up €-yi-yv-e-ro in the same way as é-7i-6e-70, we should arrive 
at the utterly unpronounceable root rv. Such roots, abso- 
lutely unpronounceable in some cases and not merely un- 
pronounceable according to Greek laws of sound, are actually 
assumed by Benfey. He gives us the chance of practising the 
pronunciation of the sound-groups fA, Kp, kv, of, arriving at 
last at OF rt and OPC. But objections to this have been 
justly raised from various quarters*. Ought any one really 


1 An intermediate view, according to which some of the roots in 
a have the long vowel, others the short vowel, has been put forward by 
Delbriick, ‘ Altind. Verb,’ p. 88 f. 

2 I am well aware that the views developed by Brugman (‘ Stud.’ 
ix. 285 ff.), as to a primitive so-called ‘nasalis sonans, and similar 
views expressed in different quarters as to the priority of the vowel ¢, 
as it occurs in Sanskrit, over ar, are a return to assumptions similar 
to those which seemed long ago disposed of. The fact that the funda- 
mental tendency of phonetic change in the history of language is 


INTRODUCTION. 49 


to maintain in all gravity that the relatively primitive 
language which lies at the base of all Indo-Germanic languages 
used such monstrous sounds? We can hardly credit any lan- 
guage with forms like these when all experience is against it. 
Or is it intended, by such unpronounceable aggregations of 
sound, to represent mere shadowy existences, pure abstractions ? 
A proceeding in our judgement extremely doubtful. It is true 
that we arrive at roots, as we conceive them, by abstraction ; 
but it does not by any means follow from this that they did 
not really exist: it is only that they have no independent 
. existence in the state of language which we have given to us 
historically. But for all that they underlie the various forms 
which have sprung out of them, just as the stems, formed 
from roots, underlie the forms which in their turn spring from 
them. The instinctive sense of roots and stems undoubtedly 
became in many ways obliterated and obscured, especially in 
the more recent periods of the life of language. But for more 
ancient times and for languages of the transparent structure 
of Sanskrit, and even Greek, as a rule at least, the feeling of 
the mutual connexion between words that originated in one 
root or one stem must have been preserved in activity. A 
Greek undoubtedly was just as well aware of the connexion 
between Aéym and Adyos, véuw and vopos, vapudo, between 45 
movs and zre(os, as a modern German of the relation of Bund 
to binden and Band, or of Fluss to fliessen. We give to such 
a connexion among a group of words the shortest scientific 
expression by basing it upon a root. There is also much to 
be said for the view that in the earliest period of the life of 
language, that is in the period preceding inflexion, the roots 
so deduced had a real existence apart from all additions, that, 
in other words, many at least of them were once true words. 
This view has recently been asserted among others by Stein- 
thal (‘Ztschr. f. Volkerpsychol.’ ii. 250) and Max Miller 
(‘ Lectures,’ 11. 37). [It has been strongly contested by A. H. 
Sayce, ‘Principles of Comparative Philology: Introduction 


from the full to the weak sound, not the reverse, is of itself enough to 
make it impossible for me to assent to such views. The OHG. 
hloufan is more primitive than the German lauf’n, &c. 

E 


50 BOOK TI. 


to the Science of Language,’ ii. 5.] Hence we can recognize 
as Indo-Germanic roots only such combinations of sound as, 
according to the phonetic laws of the primitive Indo-Ger- 
manic language, so far as we can arrive at these, can be pro- 
nounced. In fact some vowel or other is always easily discovered 
as an integral part of the root. One who preferred to start 
from rv instead of rev, would be compelled to assume even in 
yévos a strengthening, that is, a formative element quite apart 
from the termination, an assumption which would be alto- 
gether unlawful. Evidently the rejection of the vowel is 
something purely accidental, limited to some few formations 
from the root; and hence we can no more assume it in the 
root itself, than we could the strengthening of eur to eur, 
which is also limited to particular forms. We must therefore 
complete the definition of the origin of a root given above, by 
adding that a root is the combination of sounds which remains 
when everything formative and accidental has been stripped 
away from a given word. 

Another question is not so easily answered, i.e. whether we 
are to lay down special roots for the several languages, or 
common roots for the united stock. At the first glance it 
seems to be more in accordance with the approved view that 
roots were the actual primary words of the languages, to 
speak not of Greek, but only of Indo-Germanic roots. For 
nothing is more certain than that 6e, eur, rev were never 
independent words. These combinations of sound date from a 
time when language had long passed beyond the primitive 
words. It is only of the older sound-groups which may be 
regularly deduced from them, of dha, jug, gan, that it is 
probable that they had an independent existence in that early 
time. Hence Heyse (‘System der Sprachwissenschaft,’ p. 112) 
will only allow of Indo-Germanic roots, and Steinthal (‘ Zeit- 
schr. f. Volkerpsychol.’ ii. 463, i113. 250) agrees with him, 
while Jacob Grimm (‘iiber Diphthonge u. ausgef. Conson.’ 

46 p. 63) maintains that what is held to be a root in one lan- 
guage need not be regarded as such in another. The question 
is plainly not to be considered from the point of view of 
theory alone, but essentially, so to say, from that of practice, 
that is, of the requirements of special investigations. One 


INTRODUCTION. 51 


who lays down only Indo-Germanic roots, must naturally set 
aside not only Greek, but also Sanskrit roots. Accordingly 
we must not speak of the rt. gan any more than of yey, but 
only of gan. The rt. gar, which by the way may be shown 
itself to have been used in three essentially distinet primary 
meanings—‘to call’ (ynpto), ‘to devour’ (Bopeiv), ‘to wake’ 
(€ypnyopéva:)—would coincide with the root gar, which again 
has three principal meanings,—‘ to grow old’ (yéper), ‘to ap- 
proach,’ and ‘to crackle.’ As an original é is in Sanskrit some- 
times preserved, sometimes changed, without any apparent 
reason, to k, the roots kam ‘love, Kam ‘sip, and again kar 
‘make’ and Kar ‘go, would have to be reduced to one, or 
to several of identical sound. But is not this simply con- 
founding theoretically forms which in the living language 
diverge far from each other? And there are still greater 
difficulties in the way in the case of Greek, because here 
evidently from the earliest times its richer vowel-system! 
contributed to determine the meaning. é6 ‘to eat’ and 68 ‘to 
smell’ are in Greek kept as strictly distinct as the identical 
stems in Latin (edere, odor), and in Lithuanian éd-mi ‘I eat,’ 
ud-zu ‘I smell.’ Are we to refer both to a root ad, nowhere 
existing and purely theoretical? Who can assure us that ad 
‘to eat’ was not distinguished from the root meaning ‘to 
smell, in an earlier period in language, only in a way which 
we cannot now discover? The stems dp (dpapicxa and apée), 
Ep (€pécow), 6p (dpyvvpur) go back to one original theme, the 
ar retained in Sanskrit; but to each of these forms a definite 
meaning is attached, to the one with a that of ‘fitting’ and 
‘ploughing,’ to the one with e that of ‘ rowing,’ to the one with 
o that of ‘raising’ or ‘arousing ;’ and if we compare the Latin 
words artus, rémus, orior, here too this special meaning shows 
itself attached to the same vowels. It follows that this 
change of vowel is neither formative nor accidental; hence 
according to our definition it belongs to the root. Anyone 
who lays down simply ar as the root of all these Greek words, 
obscures the more special relation in which the a-sound stands 
to the meaning of dpapioxw, &c. and fails to recognize in 47 


1 The attempt to ascribe to the Indo-Germanic primitive language 


an a of varied colouring will be discussed below (p. 93). 
E 2 


52 BOOK I. 


the stem in the case of épéoow and dppevos an element which 
subserves the meaning. The difference between dppevos and 
dppevos is quite other than that between Aéyo and Adédyos, 
between ézpeov and érpamov. In the latter case the change 
of vowel is connected with the form, but it is not so in the 
former ; here it belongs to the very substance of the language. 
In the forms apro, dppevos, dpvupt, dpive, op presents itself in 
exactly the same way as the fundamental element, appears in 
them all, so to speak, as a monad, just as much as Skt. av in 
the words derived therefrom. The assertion of stems of this 
kind is therefore as indispensable for a clear representation of 
the structure of language, as the assertion of noun-stems, of 
derived verb-stems and of pronoun-stems. The noun-stem 
nAoo certainly never existed in that form independently, and 
yet we give it the same name as the Skt. noun-stem plava, in 
the case of which this independent existence is more possible. 
We call s the termination of the nominative mAdo-s, plava-s, 
although the proper original sign of this case was apparently 
sa. In short, in the science of language we always call the 
atoms (Lautkorper) and elements of the individual languages, 
which act as the representatives and we might say heirs of 
the corresponding Indo-Germanic atoms and elements, by the 
same names as these. As an unbroken tradition reigned in 
the history of language, rey is the heir of the rt. gan. The 
form rev, which by degrees developed out of gan, always 
retains the same value when inflected: why are we to call 
the two combinations of sound by different names? Hence 
I am also of opinion that we do not get much profit from 
the distinctions which some have attempted to make in order 
to avoid a confusion of the Indo-Germanic roots with their 
successors in the realm of language. Heyse (ut supra) 
wishes to distinguish between ‘roots’ and ‘root-forms, but 
the idea of a root taken strictly excludes form: Steinthal 
draws a distinction between ‘root’ and ‘theme, but the 
latter expression is too wide; Pott, ii?. 246, distinguishes 
absolute from relative roots. This would do better, and it 
is in any case important to be aware of such a difference. 
But can we really always succeed in reaching the abso- 
lute final root? The many homonymous roots which we 


- INTRODUCTION. \ 53 


should arrive at for the Indo-Germanic periodSywarn \us 
against thinking so. Will any one undertake, in the ca8eef—— 
the root kam mentioned above, to trace back the meanings 
‘love’ and ‘sip’ to one original signification, or regard it as 
credible that language from the first denoted such different 
conceptions by the same sounds? In short, we may certainly 
lay it down as probable that the Indo-Germanic languages 
proceeded from elements of words like the roots which we can 48 
infer, and that many of these had from the beginning just 
those sounds, neither more nor less, which we find in them by 
our inferences. But to decide, in the case of every such unit 
which may be inferred, whether it was the absolutely oldest 
combination of sounds linked to this conception or not is 
impossible. And therefore the science of langtiage will always 
have to do in detail essentially with relative. roots, which 
present themselves differently for each individual language. 

Be this as it may, we can of course only speak of roots at 
all in those languages, in which substance and form are not 
too entirely confused. Where, as in daughter-languages or in 
languages with much decayed sounds, e.g. in New High 
German, the connexion between forms originally belonging to 
each other is much effaced, the assumption of a root for the 
particular language is a very doubtful step. But in this 
respect Greek occupies a position not at all differing from that 
of Sanskrit. It is true that Greek grammar did not attain to 
the scientific consciousness of roots, any more than to the 
consciousness of case-endings, noun-stems, and verb-stems. 
But on all these points we must supplement the linguistic 
sense which had not yet been developed into clearness; whilst 
by the help of the insight into the earlier history of the Greek 
language which has been granted only to us, we give precision 
to the representation of it, and carry our analysis (where this 
is possible) as far as those small significant elements of words, 
which even in their Greek dress have a well-grounded claim 
to the name of roots. 

As to the Greek roots in particular, this will be the place, 
before we go any further, to insert some remarks upon their 
number and character. L. Lange has deserved our thanks for 
taking the pains to count (for his notice of the first volume of 


54 BOOK I. 


the present work in the ‘Ztschr. fir Oest. Gymn. 1860, p. 118) 
the number of the roots recognized by me in that volume, and 
to arrange them according to their phonetic character. AlI- 
though there is room for doubt with respect to individual - 
roots, yet this grouping is well calculated to furnish us with a 
general measure of the extent to which we can discover roots, 
and also of their phonetic nature. With the help of this 
arrangement, which I have altered in only a few points of 
little importance, and supplemented by some additional roots, 
I give here the main results. According to this, I consider it 
possible to refer some 700 Greek word-stems, which are treated 
as such separately, to 278 distinct roots; and of these, if the 
49 spiritus lenis as well as the spiritus asper is counted as a 
consonant (p. 43 note), 
(1) 36 consist of a consonant and a vowel: ? (615), ya 
(179), 6€ (309), &e. 
(2) 152 of a consonant, a vowel, and a second consonant : 
ax (2), dix (14), dy (118), yaF (122), &e. 
(3) 23 of two consonants and a vowel: oxe (45b), xdv 
(62), dpa (272), &e. 
(4) 24 of a consonant, a vowel, and two following conso- — 
nants: dyx (1), Fepy (141), rep (240), &e. 
(5) 40 of two consonants, a vowel, and a following conso- 
nant: KAem (58), cxvad (114), yrAad (196), &e. 
(6) 3 of two consonants, a vowel, and two following 
consonants, namely cxadm (106), crepy (176b), 
ore (219). 
_ With regard to the second division of roots, which is so 
much larger than any of the other, two important remarks are 
made by Grassmann in his papers ‘ On the aspirates and their 
simultaneous occurrence at the beginning and at the end of 
roots’ (‘Ztschr.’ xii. 81 ff.). The first is that “in Greek there 
is no root with two medial mutes and a vowel standing be- 
tween them, either by itself or expanded by a nasal” (p. 115). 
Greek is thus distinguished especially from the Teutonic 
and Letto-Slavic tongues, in which roots like the Gothic 
gab (give), Ch. SL bid (wake) are very common. The dis- 
tinction is explained by the corruption of the aspirates in 
the northern tongues, and their transformation in other ways 


INTRODUCTION. 55 


in the two classical languages. Thus the course of the investi- 
gation, which the author has conducted with equal acuteness 
and thoroughness, leads him in the next place to the conjecture 
that not only for the primitive Indo-Germanic language, but 
also for Greek, we must assume roots both beginning and 
ending with aspirates, like bhudh=Gk. dv. By this latter 
assumption, opposed as it is to the view held by most scholars, 
and by myself formerly, so much light is thrown upon many 
questions hitherto dark, especially with regard to the relation 
of several German roots to the corresponding Greek ones, that, 
in spite of Pott’s passionate attack upon it (‘Ztschr.’ xix. 
16ff.), I fully accept it. According to the familiar phonetic 
law, which in Sanskrit as in Greek does not readily allow 
the succession of two syllables each beginning with an 
aspirate, the first aspirate lost of necessity its aspiration, 
either entirely (7v0éc0at, redocopat) or at least in the majority 
of its verbal forms (tUdo, Ovo). 

But even that section of the word which, in the manner 
that has been indicated, we find to be indivisible, and the 
proper vehicle of the meaning, sometimes presents itself to us 
under more than one form, and the question arises which is 
the more primitive, and the proper root-form. It is compara- 
tively easy to decide when we have to deal with those regularly 
recurring series of vowels, which Jacob Grimm established for 
the Teutonic languages, and denoted by the name ‘Ablaut.’ 
In the case of the chord presented by the three vowels in most 
of the strong verbs, it is as a rule not difficult to arrive at the 
fundamental note, to which the root is set. It is the same 
with the corresponding phenomena in Greek. Modern philo- 
logy, here agreeing with the Sanskrit grammarians, usually 
regards the shortest form of the root as the oldest; so that 
what Grimm regarded as ‘Ablaut’ (degradation of sound) we 


hold to be rather ‘Zulaut’! (addition of sound) or vowel- 


1 The word guna-s (from which the hybrid words guniren, Gu- 
nirung have been formed, certainly not to the adornment of our 
philological writings), used with especial preference, perhaps just 
because of its mysterious origin, is according to Boehtlingk (‘ Pet. 
Dict.’) properly ‘ the subordinate, secondary vowel-strengthening,’ op- 
posed to wrddhi-s (growth), the full strengthening. Why should we 


56: BOOK I. 


intensification, which therefore, as being formative, must be 
regarded as an addition to the root, and not as something 
contained in it. Hence we regard aur as the root in spite of 
Cedyvups and ¢ebyos, Aim in spite of Aelw and Aé€Aoura, AAO In 
spite of A744. According to this view the conceptions of men, 
as has been well said, broke out first “like lightning” in short 
syllables. It is only later, and especially in connexion with 
inflexion and the coinage of noun-stems in various ways, that 
we find the tendency to bring out the root-syllable in certain 
cases more fully and broadly, a tendency which led on the one 
hand to reduplication, on the other, to those vowel-raisings, 
which then in the further course of the history of language 
underwent various ramifications and changes. Attempts have 
been made in different quarters to explain the ‘addition of 
sound’ (Zulaut) by the accent. How far they have been 
successful we need not discuss? here. It is certain that this 


not rather substitute a German word like ‘ Zulaut’ (addition of sound), 
or ‘ Vocalsteigerung’ (vowel-intensification), for the curiously devised 
and wholly unintelligible term of the Indian grammarians. 

1 The last few years have produced a number of important investi- 
gations, all based on the notion that the gradations of the vowel- 
system (Abstufungen, a happily invented expression, as I think it, 
introduced, so far as I know, first by Brugman) are most closely 
connected with the accentuation of the Indo-Germanic primitive 
language. I readily admit that this theory considerably increases 
the probability of the view taken in the text. The earlier defenders 
of this principle, Benfey, Holtzmann, Grein (cp. ‘ Greek Verb,’ p. 97), 


were for the most part only able to adduce facts from Sanskrit in’ 


support of this view. It was reserved for the luminous investigations 
of K. Verner, in Kuhn’s ‘Ztsch.’ xxiii. p. 97 ff., to explain a series 
of irregularities of the German consonant system, the so-called 
grammatische Wechsel (e. g. schneide—schnitt), from the old Indian 
accentuation so convincingly, that since then the existence of old 
Indian rules of accentuation far beyond the limits of this language, 
even down to the time when the separate life of the European 
languages began, has for the first time gained a sure footing. On 
this foundation Osthoff, in Paul and Braune’s ‘ Beitriige z. Geschichte 
d. deutschen Sprache,’ vol. iii., and Brugman in my ‘Studien,’ vol. 
ix., especially have endeavoured to build. It must be admitted that 
the views of these scholars differ on isolated points not inconsiderably, 


INTRODUCTION. 57 


hypothesis can be maintained only if we suppose for the 51 
‘primitive Indo-Germanic language a system of accentuation 
differing from the traditional system of Sanskrit on many 
points, and from that of Greek essentially. But allowing that 
in that early period the main accent of a word always went 
along with vowel intensification, yet this could not be re- 
garded as any explanation, for the further question would 
immediately present itself, why the accent in one form fell 
upon the stem, in another on the termination. And the 
answer would certainly in many cases bring us back to our 
previous conjecture, i. e. that emphasis was sometimes used by 
language to give prominence to the stem, at other times to 
the termination. This is not the place to enter into the 
details of this modification of the vowels. They belong to the 
science of the forms of language, i.e. to-Grammar. Here we 
may simply mention that the interchange of ¢€ and o (véu and 
vouos), and the much less common interchange of 7 and 
(pjyvup, Eppwya) belong to this category. The view, which I 
established in my essay de nominum formatione, p. 22, that the 
o-sound is heavier than the e-sound, and that therefore here 
too we must assume intensification, addition of sound, though 
in a lesser degree (cp. ‘The Greek Verb,’ p. 398), has found many 
supporters. Since its publication it has been confirmed by my 
investigations on the splitting of the a-sound (‘ Ueber die Spal- 
tung des A-Lautes’) printed in the ‘Sitzungsberichte d. k. Sachs. 
Gesellsch. d. Wissensch. 1864, p.9 ff. I believe that I have 
shown there that the division of the old a-sound has a much 
‘deeper influence on the structure of the European members of 52 
the Indo-Germanic group of languages than has been hitherto 
supposed, and that in particular, first e and then afterwards o 
arose from what was originally a simple a-sound. The change 
of the a to the thinner e, and afterwards to 7, was the earlier, 
the change of a to the duller o and afterwards u was the later 
modification ; and hence the above-mentioned languages agree 


and while the accent theory is mixed up with other views which 
have recently been started as to the original multiform character of 
the Indo-Germanic a, the originality of the 1 sonans, &c., 1t becomes 
more and more evident, that we are far enough from a settlement of 
these questions in any one direction. 


58 BOOK I. 


much more completely in the former than in the latter point, 
e.g. értd=septem, Goth. sibun, Lith. septyni, éori=est, Goth. 
ist, Lith. ésti, but di-s=ovi-s, Goth. avistr, Lith. avi-s. Hence 
I do not doubt, and have proved more completely in the paper 
quoted above, that in a very early time from original roots 
like gan, man, gen and men were formed, and that gon and 
mon (yéyova, wénova) are related to these as zeur to eur, AetT to 
Aut, and just as the higher stages Aotn, mote (A€éAouTra, Térrol- 
Oa), édovd (efAjAovba) to the lower stages Aeim, E10, éAevd 
(Acro, 1elOw, érhev(@)oopvat). From the original pair of sounds 
gan (Skt. gdn-d-mt) and gan (Skt. perf. Gd-gan-a), bhar (Skt. 
bhdr-d-mi) and bhar (Skt. bhdrd-s ‘burden’) by gradual 
‘shifting’ probably first gen, gan, bher, bhar were formed, then 
gen, gon (yevéc Oa, yéyova), bher, bhor (pépw, Popo-s). But we 
have no indication that there was ever a period when yey and 
yov, dep and gop were arbitrarily interchanged, so that occa- 
sionally yovécOat, dopo were also used, or, on the other hand, 
yéeyeva, pépo-s. The Greek vowel-modification is certainly a 
copy, however much it may have been blurred, of the original 
vowel-modification, which is deeply based in the structure of 
the language. Thus we have here a new justification for 
ascribing the e-sound to the Greek roots in question. 

The case is not so simple where we have an interchange 
between ¢ and a, as occurs in KéAopar by the side of xaréo, 
aTéX\Aw and éardrAnv, BérXos and BddA@, Tpéw@ and érparor. 
Here there is no firmly-established relation based upon a wide 
analogy. We cannot say that a as the heavier vowel takes 
the place of 0, for this o sometimes also appears by the side of 
e and a as a third vowel: o7déA0-s, BoA, Tpémo-s, and the 
heavier a is attached even to those forms which are in other 
respects the shortest, the forms of the strong aorist. But it is 
also dangerous to start with a root Kad, ctad, Bad, Tpat, for 
Born and rpéro-s are related to BeA and tpem precisely as 
yovo-s is related to yev. 

The forms in @ are evidently isolated remains of an older 
pre-Hellenic state of language'. There has been a weakening 


[* In the view of Brugman and other recent investigators the a 
in such forms as these is the Greek representative of the vowel which 
arises from the sonant nasal or liquid. Thus Bak=0/, rpar=trp.] 


INTRODUCTION. 59 


of the ‘linguistic instinct, which felt neither the one vowel 
nor the other to be decidedly the characteristic one for the 
root concerned, and this relation we cannot, I believe, de- 
note better than by giving double roots kad keA, cTeA cTaA, 
BOA Bed, Tpett tparr, placing that form first which is the most 
widely prevalent. 

A variation of form in the stem-syllables, which in many 
respects may be compared to the changes in the vowel which 
we have just discussed, arises from the mobility of the nasals. 
At first sight it seems as though the aorist éxAwyov was related 
to the perfect xéxAayya, just as Ervyov is to Térevya, and as 
though Avyé stood in the same relation to the root Auk ‘shine’ 
as dy does to the root Fer. In fact, the phenomenon that of 
two words or word-forms belonging to the same stock one is 
stronger by a nasal than the other, extends over a very wide 
circle. It was quite natural to treat this mobility in the first 
instance in accordance with the points of view adopted in 
regard to the vowel-system, i.e. to regard the shorter form 
as the radical one, and the nasal, where it appears, as a 
strengthening element. In this sense the process was called 
‘Nasalization, or by a name which Pott occasionally prefers, 
‘Rhinismus.’ So Lepsius treated the matter in his essay on 
‘Palzeography as a means of Linguistic Investigation ;’ so too 
W. v. Humboldt, ‘On the Variety in the Structure of human 
Language, p. 254; and similarly Pott, ‘Etym. Forsch.’ ii”. p. 
451 ff.; Corssen in his ‘ Nachtrage, 192 f., and in his work on 
‘Pronunciation, 17. 565 ff. The sound of the nasals, or ‘ reso- 
nants’ as phonetic physiologists call them (Briicke, ‘Grund- 
ziige*,’ 36), which approaches the sound of the vowels, seemed 
to favour such a conception. Still even in the earlier editions 
of this work I somewhat modified my view. Now, after con- 
sidering afresh the investigations of Joh. Schmidt (‘ Vocalismus,’ 
vol. i), I feel myself compelled to acknowledge still more 
definitely that the mobility of the nasal is a complicated phe- 
nomenon, and only in part falls under the point of view of the 
strengthening of sound. We shall do well to distinguish three 
cases, V1Z.— 

1. Those in which the form without a nasal has come from 
that with a nasal. 


60 BOOK I. a 


Thus forms like kr\éyéo, éxrayéa, krayyy, Lat. clangor, 
give evidence that xkrayy was earlier than kday. If, as I 
believe, wévOos, 7a0os, rémrovOa, érabov, cannot be separated 
from mévouat, mwévns, moévos, it is reasonable to regard the 
forms with the nasal as the older, those without it, as the 
later. The disappearance of the nasal, especially after a, 1s a 
recognized process, in which occasionally Greek agrees with 
Sanskrit: e.g. é-xard-v, Skt. catd-m beside centu-m. That this 

54 originally was connected with the accentuation is an attractive 
conjecture of Brugman’s (‘Stud.’ IX), though we cannot test 
here the extent to which it can be carried out. The pheeno- 
menon is elucidated by similar ones of much later date within 
the history of the Greek language, e.g.” OdAvzos beside ” OAup- 
tos, Nupéddwpos beside viudn. We may in any case argue 
from this a duller pronunciation of the nasals in particular 
dialects. But the complete suppression of this element to such 
an extent that the syllable concerned becomes short, cannot, 
as Clemm, ‘ Rhein. Mus.’ xxxii. 466 ff. has shown, be demon- 
strated earlier than in a poet of the Anthology, who uses 
evkapmés as a dactyl. 

2. Cases in which the nasal which has made its way into 
the root has suffered metathesis. 

This is most clearly the case in verbal forms, for which 
Schleicher was probably the first to establish this principle. 
That the » of yungo (ep. Skt. 1 plur. yuag-mds), scindo as com- 
pared with jugum, scidt, is the same element as appears in the 
Skt. ju-nd-g-mi, and in the Gr. ¢ey-vu-p1, oxid-vy-pi as a dis- 
tinct syllable in another place, and that it occurred in the latter 
place sooner than in the former, may now be described as the 
universal opinion of philologists. (Cp. ‘Greek Verb, p. 170.) 
The same view is now taken of the nasal of the Skt. vi-n-dd-mi 
‘I find’ (for *vtd-nd-mi), and hence of the Greek ¢-v-d-é\)erau, 
which with its meaning of videtur belongs as certainly to the 
root vid ‘see, as the Sanskrit form. We must trace back 
ivddédAera to a noun-stem ivé-ado, which was probably based 
upon a present stem *fivda, just as diddoK-ado-s on diddoKo. 
This *fiydw is the exact reproduction of vinda-mi. 

3. Cases in which we must regard the nasal as an accretion. 

It is quite undeniable that a nasal has often developed 


INTRODUCTION. 61 


at the end of a Greek word after a vowel. Where this nasal 
did not become firmly attached, it is called ‘vy paragogicum, 
or €peAkvorixéy, for which we may refer especially to Lobeck, 
‘Klementa, ii. 143 ff, and Deventer, ‘De litera v paragogica’ 
(Miinster, 1863). In forms like éo7iv, $épovo.v we cannot 
imagine the nasal to be original. It is now universally recog- 
nized that this moveable vy is not merely due to the require- 
ments of the verse, or to a disinclination to hiatus, but, as 
inscriptions show, extended colloquially over a much wider 
sphere, and that the familiar rule of grammar only by degrees 
came to hold good, and that not without a conscious training 
of the usage of language. But we must also recognize firmly 
attached nasals of a similar origin. The clearest instance is 
furnished by the Cyprian genitive singular in wr instead of a, 
e.g. apyvpwev=apyvpov (Deecke und Siegismund, ‘ Stud.’ vii. 55 
241). Analogies for this nasal accretion at the end may be 
found, it appears, in very different regions of language: thus, 
as I am informed by Arabic scholars, the so-called ‘ Nunna- 
tion’ in Arabic (though Philippi, ‘Wesen des status Con- 
structus, p. 184, takes a different view). Kolle, (‘ Nachrichten 
der Gottinger Ges. d. Wissenchaften 1866, p. 314) has shown 
the existence of nasalization, especially in connexion with re- 
duplication, from the African languages. German dialects 
furnish instances of the same 7 in an application very similar 
to the Greek : e.g. in the dialect of Ziirich wie ’n er au=wie 
er auch (‘ Litt. Centralblatt 1860,’ p. 57), in that of Carinthia 
ba'n enk= bei euch (Kuhn, ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 896 from Lexer). Now 
it is asserted that the same accretion established itself at the 
end of a syllable as at the end of a word. Joh. Schmidt, 
generally disinclined to this view, still admits that in words 
like orpéuBos beside orpédpa, AVyé, AvyKevds beside root Auk, 
Aetcow, tauBos beside idmTw, KdpuuPos beside kopvdy, this 
explanation is as admissible as any other. Hence I recognize 
here the phonetic change, which the ancient grammarians 
(Eustathius, ‘Comment.’ p. 1123, 41, p. 1850, 26) denoted as 
atoupacpés. It seems to me that this view has the advantage 
of simplicity over other possible theories: and therefore I leave 
it to others to assume for Avyxets a verb *Avyxo, and to 
trace this back to a *Auk-yy-pu. The nasal of Oryydve, Aap- 


62 BOOK I. 


Bdévo, and XAavOdéve, which has made its way into the root, and 
that of rdpumavov beside the isolated turdv@v (‘ Hymn. Homer.’ 
14, 3) I have explained as an anticipation of the nasal of the 
final syllable (‘ Greek Verb,’ p. 171). The nasals which appear 
tolerably irregularly in syllables of reduplication (e.g. map- 
paiva, ripmpnpt) have been carefully put together by Fritzsche, 
‘Stud.’ vi. 8309, where the attempt is made to explain them in 
part as weakenings from liquids. The main fact for us is that 
in etymologizing the nasal can frequently be regarded as a 
moveable element. 

A difficulty of a wholly different kind presents itself in a 
number of roots, whose final consonant does not always 
remain the same. For dyroya: and dys we shall lay down 
om as the root unconditionally: but it will appear hereafter 
that the w here is the successor of a x, and that the related 
words dace, dooopa are only to be explained by the root ok, 
occurring in the Lat. ocu-lu-s. But it would not be correct 
to give dx as the root of éyrouai also, for the interchange of x 
and 7 is neither formative, serving for the expression of any 
distinction, nor accidental in éyrouat, wis. We evidently find 
ourselves here in the same position as previously in the case 

56 of the interchange of « and a. We must recognize a dulling 
of the linguistic sense, which we express by allowing the co- 
existence of a two-fold root 6x on. 

Hitherto we have always been able to explain the differing 
forms of roots from peculiar relations of sounds. But there is 
a variation of roots which extends beyond these limits. This 
phenomenon, which has not as yet been sufficiently considered 
from a general point of view, has received its most thorough 
discussion from Pott in the ‘Etym. Forsch.’ i’. 27, 167 and 
recently in 117. 272. Pott assumes a tolerably extensive 
variation of roots at a period evidently very early in the 
life of language, by means of which a modification (‘ Temperi- 
rung’) of the fundamental conception became possible. This 
modification, expressed by a change or addition of sounds, is 
conceiveable in three ways, by means of an alteration either at 
the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of a root. In all 
these alterations we do not include those changes of sounds 
which are to be explained by the general process of ‘ weather- 


INTRODUCTION. 63 


ing away. Thus we have here no concern with the fact that 
when we find in Greek, by the side of crer the form ter 
(oréyos and réyos), we explain the latter form, as well as 
the Lat. teg in teg-o, as shortened from the first and fuller 
root. Here there is no ‘variation’ but an ‘affection’ of the root, 
though in this case a very old one, extending beyond the 
period of the Graeco-Italic language, inasmuch as we find also 
in German and Erse a simple dental initial consonant. But 
an initial variation does present itself, according to Pott, in 
the Lat. scalp-o, sculp-o compared with the root glab in glab-er, 
glub in glub-o: oKxédo (stem oxodom) and oxdédAow (mole), cKo- 
A’TT@, are connected with scalp and sculp, yAdd-a, yAdd-v, 
yradu-pé-s with glab, yAvd-w with glub: all have in common 
the idea of ‘hollowing. Now here Pott regards it as possible 
that the initial s, which he does not in this case take to be a 
preposition, contributed to give a special colouring, so that 
skalp and galbh, skulp and gulbh—for so we should have to 
give the forms—would be sister-roots, which we should have, 
not to derive one from another, but to consider as having an 
equal right to recognition. However it will as a rule be more 
prudent here to neglect entirely the question of mutual con- 
nexion; and with respect to the particular roots in question, 
I agree with Joh. Schmidt (‘Vocal.’ ii. 293) in separating 
those beginning with s from the others. It appears to me 
that we have no sufficient basis for the assumption of “a 
formative sound modifying the meaning of the original root,” 
(Heyse, ‘System,’ p. 114) at the beginning of a root!. The 57 
place where formative sounds are added, according to the 
universal tendency of the Indo-Germanic languages, is not the 
beginning, but the end. For our purpose we keep roots of 
the kind entirely distinct, except indeed where the curtailed 
beginning can be explained as an affection, because we may 


1 This means of reducing two similar roots to a unity, which 
reminds us of the attempts of older philologers, mentioned above 
(p. 13), has been used again tolerably extensively by Pictet. A. Weber 
also (‘Ztschr.’ vi. 139) occasionally allows ‘a prefixed s,’ and Max 
Miiller (‘ Lectures,’ ii. 312) expresses a similar judgement. [Cp. p. 42 
note. Skeats. v. doubts the commonly asserted connexion of smelt 
with melt. | 


64 BOOK I. 


reasonably conjecture that they were separated even before 
the division of the languages. Besides their number will be 
found to be small. 

The case is similar with letters in the middle of a root. 
The same verbs may serve us here again as examples: scalp 
and sculp, yAad and yAv¢ are distinguished from each other 
by the vowel, and certainly this distinction is not without 
meaning. Hence in our view, as in form and meaning they 
are not quite identical, these also are distinct roots. Fick, 
‘Worterb.’ 15.574, recognizes ypddey in the Germ. kerben | Eng. 
carve], yAvpe in the NHG. klieben [Eng. cleave]. Hence 
we do not undertake the attempt to derive the uw from the a1. 
Still less shall we endeavour to refer to one root such forms 
as are distinguished in respect to consonants within the root, 
with the sole exception of the nasals, which we discussed 
above. In spite of the slight difference in meaning the roots 
Foar (pHyvupc) and Far (&yvupt) are regarded by us as distinct. 
In this case, as in the numerous similar cases quoted by Pott 
(‘Berl. Jahrb. 1840, p. 635) we are contented to divide that, 
the separation of which is at least extremely old. If sounds 
are connected with the conceptions denoted by them by an 
internal bond, it is natural that similar conceptions should be 
denoted by similar sounds. To that time of the first estab- 
lishment of sounds and ideas we do not here go back. But 
there are particular Greek stems, in the case of which our 
task will not allow us to dispense with the assumption of 
root-variation, effected by early differences of vocalisation. 
Thus we must claim for the time before the separation of the 
languages a root tak with the by-forms tk and tuk, that is 
to say, a root appearing in three various forms through a 


1 The attempt to explain ‘every’ radical 7 and w, with the ex- 
ception of those which have proceeded from ja and va, as a weakening 
of an original a, has been made by Fick (‘Vergl. Worterb.’ iv*. p. 15 ff.) 
I gladly recognize the acuteness which has been employed in the 
process, but confess that these hypotheses are too flighty for me. 
So long as Fick himself is compelled to give up the attempt to 
refer such an important and widely extended root as bhw ‘grow’ 
to a form in a (p. 31), no one can be censured for feeling unable to 
draw such a conclusion as that above-mentioned. 


INTRODUCTION. 65 


degradation of vowel (Ablaut) as in the German, the ex- 
istence of which in all three forms can be proved in the case 
of almost all the allied languages. In Greek from tak sprung 
tek and tox (No. 235). But these three forms of the root are 
not so distinguished from each other, that each form pos- 
sesses a definite meaning—in that case we should give three 
roots,—but the principal meanings, ‘beget,’ ‘hit, ‘prepare,’ are 
so distributed to the three main forms, that in three families 
of speech different vowels! appear for each of them, 1.e. 


a (€ 0) 0 U 
Gk. rex-ety OPr. tetk-usna Skt. tok-d-s (rt. tuk) 
(creatio) ( proles) 
TEK-[Lap Lith. tik-y-te 
T6£0-v (to aim) 
tink-a-s Gk. tux-ety 
(it befalls) 

TEK-T-@V Gk. revy-euv 
Skt. tak-sh-an (faber) T€-TUK-OVTO 
tak-sh OPr. tik-in-t TUK-0-S 

(fabricari) (make) 


Lith. taszq-ti 
(to work in wood) 


Here even in Greek the relation of réxuwap and rvyeiv—y 
has arisen out of x by affection—of réxray and rervxov7o, 
TvK-o-s (chisel) is not conceiveable without the assumption of a 
vowel-splitting. We must certainly maintain a root-variation 
which perhaps coincided originally with the differentiation 
of meaning, but afterwards continued independently of it, 
and this is the very reason why a complete separation is not 
possible. 


* Fick, i°. 86 explains the 7 as a weakened a, and gets w from the 
assumed by-form tvak. Certainly tokd-s shows that tuk was really 
felt to be a root. A similar change of vowels, which is but rarely 
found in Greek, Joh. Schmidt in his ‘ Vocalismus’ endeavours to 
explain by the effect of the nasals and liquids on the vowels in their 
neighbourhood. 


66 BOOK I, 


8. 


59 More important than such isolated interchange of vowels in 
the middle of roots—which should not, however, mislead us 
into allowing a promiscuous interchange of the three pri- 
mitive vowels a, 7, w—is the transformation of the final letter. 
It does not admit of doubt that a considerable number of 
roots are preserved to us in two-fold forms, of which the one 
is longer than the other by a final consonant. J. Grimm in 
his essay ‘On Diphthongs after dropped consonants’ (Dee. 11, 
1845), reprinted in the third volume of his ‘Kleine Schriften,’ 
p- 102, in discussing a long list of such double roots, ascribes the 
priority to the forms ending in a consonant, at any rate in the 
Teutonic languages (p. 60), though he concludes by regarding 
the accretion of a consonant as possible for an earlier period 
of language. That Lobeck from his own point of view was led 
to the assumption of such accretion we saw above, p. 13. 
Here with Pott, who discusses these affixes thoroughly in 117. 
4.60 ff., we call the shorter form the primary, the longer the 
secondary, and the process of the addition of a consonant ex- 
pansion (Weiterbildung)'. Of course here again we do not 
take into consideration cases in which the twofold form is 
only apparent; for instance, where we have a moveable s at 
the end of the Greek roots, for this ¢ falls away or is assimi- — 
lated according to definite phonetic laws (e.g. the root €c— 
é-ovr for €o-ovT, ei-ul, root éc—év-vu-e for éo-vv-pt), but roots 


1 Fick (‘ Worterb.’ iv®. 44 ff.) treats the whole question here touched 
upon in its widest extent. The principles on which this is done 
do not differ essentially from those which are here maintained. But 
I do not understand why every consonant that occurs as final in a 
root where the initial letter is also a consonant, should be secondary. 
If there were always roots like ak, ad, ar, why not also tak, pad, 
tar? Some important roots, as e. g. bhar ‘ bear,’ according to Fick’s 
own confession, stubbornly resist his bold analysis. Here, as else- 
where, a systematizing consistency seems to be out of place. Still, 
it is useful to see what can be done in this direction. When this 
question is treated again from the general Indo-Germanic point of 
view, it would be desirable to separate instances which the meaning 
makes certain, from combinations which can only claim at most a 
certain degree of probability. 


INTRODUCTION. 67 


which in several languages show themselves in a twofold 
shape, when the occurrence of the shorter is not phonetic- 
ally explicable. Here we must go back to the period of 
the organization of language ; and to understand even Greek 60 
we must not neglect to cast a glance upon these phenomena. 
If we compare, as has often been done, the verb 7idw with 
the Skt. dhi-pd-ja-ti ‘he fumigates, inasmuch as the aspir- 
ation in 70d has changed its place (as €6uwa, OvuBpa show), 
we cannot but refer both verbs to the shorter root 6v, Skt. 
dhu, which clearly occurs in Oto (No. 320), @vos, Odor, and 
also in the Skt. dhu-md-s ‘smoke ’=Lat. fu-mu-s, Lith. du- 
mat (smoke). The root dhu is therefore strengthened by p, 
and in this expanded form comes under the head of the San- 
skrit causative forms in p, with which, however, a number of 
forms without a distinctly causative meaning are connected 
(Delbriick ‘Ind. Verb.’ 210). <A similar p might be assumed in 
da-m7 (ddm-T-@, dam-dvyn) which is connected with the Lat. 
dap-s: from which we see that deiz-v-ov undoubtedly belongs 
here (No. 261). The shorter root is the da of da-i-w=Skt. 
da, do (No. 256), whence dai-s (stem dair) and Skt. dajd-s 
(share). 6u-m for the usual du (d%w) is demonstrable first in 
the Alexandrian poets in the forms dimr@, dvmrn-s. Tpv-7-n, 
Tpumd-w are connected with rpv-w and Treip-w, Lat. ter-o (No. 
239). It is very probable that the root éAn for Fed-m (No. 383) 
is connected with the Lat. volup(e), and is to be referred to the 
shorter stem which enters into BovAopat, vol-o, velle (No. 659) ; 
and also that xKAé€-7-T-w, Lat. cle-p-o, Goth. hAliftu-s (thief) 
[Scotch ‘lift’ of cattle|is an expansion of the root which occurs 
in the shortest form in Lat. oc-cul-o, clam, but which is similarly 
expanded by a p in the OPr. anklip-t-s ‘concealed. The 
root ckadt (No. 106) in cxddo, Lat. scalp-o, mentioned on 
p- 57 because of its vowel, connects itself with the shorter 
GKOA In Kado, oxadéis, and the root kapr (No. 41) of xkapz- 
aédipo-s, Kpait-vé-s with Skt. Kar, i.e. kar ‘to move, and Lat. 
curro, xpéu-m-Te-c ai ‘to clear the throat, certainly comes 
from the root ypeu (No. 200 b): and in the same way xpip- 
m-Tw points to the root ypa-v of ypaivw (No. 201). We shall 
see below how the p by weakening sometimes becomes 6 and 
d, e.g. in KadvBn (cp. Kadvmra), p. 539, in oréd, which under 
Keg 


68 BOOK I. 


No. 224 we shall recognize as connected with Lat. stipare, 
and the Skt. sthd-pdja-ti, the causative of sthd ‘to stand.’ 

For the expanding affix of a ¢=Skt. bh we can quote at 
least one intance that can hardly be contested. In Sanskrit 
the root vd (found also in the form vé, Pres. vd-jd-mi) occurs 
with the meaning ‘weave, which is preserved in #-7pio-v 
‘warp of the web,’ for Fr-rpio-y. Besides this Aufrecht 
(‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 274 ff.) has shown, from the name of the ‘spider’ 
arna-vaibhi-s, which he translates ‘ wool-weaver, the existence 
of a root vabh, which is to be recognized in the OS. webbi, 

61 OHG. web-an, but also, surprising as it might appear at first 
sight, in bd-aivw (No. 406°). But td-7¢-ac-nar points to a 
stronger form Fad, which is related to d¢ precisely as Skt. 
svap ‘sleep’ to dm in b7-vo-s (No. 391). Possibly also the 
Skt. ubh (hold together, unite in combinations) is only a 
shortened vabh. Op. Pictet, ii. 167, 175. In addition to 
this instance, it is very easy to derive Skt. stabh ‘support’ 
with Gr. oteup (No. 219) from the root sta ‘stand.’ 

I have often pointed out on previous occasions the frequent 
addition of a 4 in Greek and Latin roots (‘ Ztschr. fiir das Alter- 
thumsw. 1849,’ p. 337, ‘Ztschr. f. verg]. Sprachf.’ i1. 400, 111. 408) ?. 
The following are Greek stems in x, which may with certainty 
be regarded as expanded: 6Aex in the Homeric dAexev, dAé- 
kovto by the side of dAe, which is 6A (@Aeca, ddAAUpL) eX- 
panded by the addition of a subsidiary vowel. We may 
therefore consider 6A as the root, though no form certainly 
correlated has yet been found in the kindred languages. 
TITGK In €-17TaAk-o-v, TTHTT® (i.e. WTNK-l-w) by the side of na 
in kara-wrh-rnv (Buttm. ‘A. Gr. ii. 285), and as a by-form mrox 


1 Fick, iv’ 55 ff. puts together what can be found in other languages 
corresponding to this expansion of the root. Among this there is 
very much which is to me extremely doubtful. It is remarkable 
how few Sanskrit roots, in which such an expansion may be con- 
jectured, occur in other languages. The root dag, which I previously 
compared with é-deka must be entirely separated from rt. dd ‘give’ 
on the ground of its meaning ‘ honour,’ ‘do homage to’ and only in a 
derivative sense ‘ offer:’ it is rather akin to Lat. decet, decus. The 
shorter dar ‘consider’ beside darg ‘see’ (=Gr. depx), according to 
the Pet. Dict., is not an old word. And so on. 


INTRODUCTION, 69 


in mT@€é (St. rr@x) mrécow.—Bak in Bax-Tpo-v and bac-ulu-m 
by the side of Ba, Bynvat, Skt. g& (Pott gives a different ex- 
planation: W. 1. 31)4—8puk in Bpvx-w from Bop in fi-Bpe- 
oxo, Skt. gar (glutire), Lat. vor-a-re.— dix, which may be de- 
duced from édediccopar by the side of dt in deé-di-ver (ep. 
below, p. 623)— épux in épvx-wm by the side of epv-w. To 
these we shall hereafter add some verbal stems, in which the 
K appears in a weakened form. This expansive « finds em- 
ployment also in the formation of tenses, especially for the 
perfect with x and the few aorists distinguished by the same 
consonant, for which I may now refer to my ‘Greek Verb, 
p- 408 ff?. The same guttural element meets us with especial 62 
clearness as secondary in Lat. ja-ci-o (rt. ja, ep. Greek féva) 
and fa-c-io (rt. dha, ep. T.0évar). 

At least one root is expanded by the medial g; and this has 
various ramifications in Greek. As Skt. ju (colligare) is to jug, 
Le. jug (conjungere), 80 18 eu ((@-vvv-p) to wr (<evy-vu-pL). 

Much more frequent use is made in Sanskrit of Kh (Pott, 117. 
621). This is universally recognized as nothing more than 
a weakening of an original sk. So that the Skt. ga-kh-a-ti, 
or gakkhati (he goes) from the root gam, stands on the same 
footing as the Gr. Bd-ox-e., and accordingly this affix takes 
its place among the large family of amplifications of the pre- 
sent stem, and is treated accordingly in my ‘Greek Verb,’ 
p. 187 ff. The inchoative meaning of this affix, which sub- 
sequently branches off into various subdivisions, is unmis- 
takeable in Greek and Latin. 

The dental mutes are likewise to be found among the 
appended consonants. The ¢ appears but seldom (Pott, 11?. 
733); the clearest instance is that of the Skt. dju-t ‘twinkle, 
or ‘glitter, by the side of the shorter div of like meaning. 


1 The comparison of rk» with Lat. td-bé-s, td-b-e-sco and Chsl. 
ta-ja ‘melt’ I have now given up, as is explained under No, 231. 

2 From Ascoli’s ‘Studj Critici,’ ii. 30, I learn the extent to which 
I find myself, to my great satisfaction, in agreement with the pre- 
viously published views of my learned friend. He will himself be 
ready to believe that I omitted to mention his name then, only 
because his treatise (‘ Studj Ario-Semitici’) was not in my remembrance 
at the time when I was writing. 


70 BOOK Tf. 


We may compare with this the 7 that has found its way into 
a small number of Greek words before suffixes beginning with 
uw. In one of these, du-r-pHv, a-t-p}, &-7-pds, forms which— 
together with derua Pr6E, derpov mvedtpa Hesych.—we may 
regard as varieties of one primitive form (No. 588), we have 
the analogy of Sanskrit and German to help us. For it 
probably corresponds (ep. No. 588) to the Skt. @-t-mdn ‘breath, 
‘soul, and AS. dhom by the side of the NHG. o-d-em. The 
shorter root is undoubtedly av, au, Gk. atviw, dnp. 

An amplificatory d may be vecognized at least in two roots 
which are widely spread through several languages. The 
root ke (for oxe) in xke-i-w, xe-d-¢@ has the same relation to 
the root cxe-d in oxe-d-dvvv-pu that the Skt. khd (i.e. ska) in 
khd-j-d-mi (cut) has to kshad (by metathesis for skad) ‘to 
take to pieces, as is seen from the comparison of the forms 
collected at No. 45b, No. 294, and 295. Also we cannot but 
conclude from pé-di-pvo-s, “éd-ovt-es, Lat. mod-u-s, mod-i-us, 
mod-er-or the existence of a root ued (confined to the Euro- 
pean languages), which has apparently developed from ma, 
and meets us again in the Gothic mit-an with the natural 
change of d to t (No. 286). 

More important is the aspirate—Skt. dh, Gk. 8. Sanskrit 
and Greek both agree in having this affix in judh ‘to fight, 
from which come Skt. judhmd-s ‘warrior, and Gk. vopiy, 
vopivn with o instead of the 6 that was added to the uw. 
The unexpanded root ju occurs in the Vedas with the 
meaning ‘ward off’ But in an entirely independent 
fashion, the Greek language uses its 0 to the widest extent. 
How far the addition of a 6 is adapted to explain verbal 
inflexion may here be intimated rather than fully ex- 
plained, as I have treated the subject at length in ‘The 
Greek Verb, p. 498 (chap. xix). We find an added 0 
in past tenses like €oye-6-o-v, pere-Ki-a-0-0-v, €-épy-a-9-0-y, 
veu-€-0-ovro; in present forms like ’Ap-é-0-ovca, nep-é-6- 
ovTal, TEA-€-0-@, ga-é-0-w, ddey-€-0-@, mAH-O-@ (rt. Aa), 
mpy-O-w@ (rt. mpa), Kvj-0-@ (by the side of xvd-o), vi-6-o 
(rt. ve), o7-0-@ (rt. ca), 7v-0-@ (rt. mu, Skt. pui-ja-mi ‘I foul,’ 
No. 388), Bapt-6-e1, Bpl-0-w, 01-vd-0-«, pi-v0-0-@, &x-8-0-pat 
(by the side of dy-os), éo-6- and éc-Oi-w (rt: 5), united to 


INTRODUCTION. 7k 


o in ai-c6-@ (rt. af), Bi-Bd-o6- (rt. Ba); in the perfect in 
€yp-nyop-0-aor (K 419), Be-Bpoé-6-o1s A 35 (2); common to 
several tense-stems in the stems na-0, mev-0 (€7a-6-ov, 7é- 
mov-Oa, rt. na, mav No. 354), 7A-v-6-ov, €A-7AVO-a (cp., how- 
ever, Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 250), by the side of €p-y-o-uar, which 
must be for €p-cx-o-al, both being from a root ép=Skt. ar 
‘go; cleaving inseparably to a stem in dap-6, ¢-dpa-6-ov, dap- 
6-dv-w, Skt. dra (drdi) ‘sleep’ (No. 262), wa-6, é-a-6-ov, pav- 
6-dv-w (No. 429), rt. man ‘think’ (Benf. i. 258, ii. 36)1, é-6, i.e. 
cFe-0, €0-i-(w, ciwOa. The 6 of the weak (first) aorist also 
belongs to this group. Primitive derivatives sometimes show 
the # in common with the corresponding verbal forms: dy 6os, 
mévOos, maé0os, €0os and 700s, wevOjpar (Hesych.), pevO7pes 
(Suid.)= @povrides ; sometimes are the only ones that show us 
forms with 06, e.g. in (-0-v-s (root i, ep. try-s), yvd-6-o-s, 
yva-6-"0-s, dx-0-0-s, or7-0-0s (root cota), éc-0-os (root Fec), 
kiv-d0-10-pa (Aesch. ‘ Prom.’ 124) and in other words. Perhaps 
too the 6 that appears more frequently than 7 before suffixes 
beginning with y springs from the same source—e.¢. dpyx7n-6- 
po-s, i-0-un (cp. (-0-v-s ‘going’), ora-0-pé-s (ep. éi-cra-6-éos 
peydpoio and o77-8-os). The 6 in the termination of the 
middle infinitive -c@a: belongs likewise to the same class, 
inasmuch as it corresponds to an Indic dh (Ved. inf. -dhjai) 
(‘Greek Verb, p. 351, chap. xv.), but it is true it has obtained 
in this case a much firmer hold on the construction of the 
form in a somewhat different way. It has been already often 
remarked (Pott, i!. 187, 11”. 474) that in Latin, German, Lithu- 
anian, and Slavonic there is sometimes found for this ubiqui- 
tous @ its regular correspondent d, which proves the @ to be 
very old. Among the more striking coincidences are: gav- 64 
de-o with yn-0é-o, yé-yn6-a (No. 122), the forms of the Gk. 
preterites compared with the German preterites of the so- 
called weak verbs (Bopp. ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ 11. 505 ff.), the numerous 
Lithuanian and occasional Church-Slavonic verbs with an 
added d, e.g. ChSl. i-d-@ ‘I go, with which however, accord- 
ing to Millenhoff (Haupt’s ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 387) the Goth. zddja 
‘I went, has nothing in common but the root. The ChSl. d 


1 T am not convinced by Kuhn, who (‘ Ztscher.’ ii, 395) compares 
pal, pavd, with Skt. manth ‘shake.’ 


fie BOOK I. 


then we may compare immediately with the @ in (@d-s and 
iOun. It is deserving of notice that it happens that the root 
i makes in ChSl. more use of the d than the other verbs 
of the same class. (Schleicher ‘ Kirchenslaw. Formenlehre, 
325.) 

Of the addition of a sibilant in a long list of Sanskrit roots 
discussed by Pott, i. 167 and ii?. 566 (cp. Jac. Grimm ‘KI. 
Schriften, i. 317) we have already spoken at p. 28. Greek 
forms of this kind are the following: at& = Skt. vaksh, Goth. . 
vahs-j-an, pres. avé-w, Ion. dé€-a, i.e. aFeE-w, ad€-dv-w by the 
side of the Lat. aug-e-o (No. 159), Gack, pres. dAéé-@= Skt. 
rak-sh (servare, tueri) for ark-s by the side of a@A-adk-eiv, 
adk-h (No. 7), 6da&, ddaé, pres. dd¢€m with several collateral 
forms (Buttmann ‘A. Gr.’ ii. 250) by the side of the root dak, 
déxv-w, Skt. dag, dag (No. 9), de& in deE-1-ds (No. 266), to be 
compared with the Skt. daksh ‘to be fit, by the side of dek 
in d€x-opat, déxTvdo-s (No. 11), dey, pres. déy-w, Lat. deps-o 
by the side of dé-o, Ey for ney pres. éy-@ from the root men 
Skt. pak (cook), and so for wéyvo. The roots with an added s 
are often connected with the desiderative forms, which on 
their side again stand in an undeniable relation to the future 
in o. 

A nasal appears joined to several widely disseminated roots 
of great antiquity, though the nasal is not always of the same 
order in the different languages. So to the Skt. gd (go), of 
which the aor. is a-g-d-m, corresponds the Gk.’Ba (No. 634), 
of which the aor. is é-@y-v, while gam with short vowel and 
added m is represented by Baiva, i.e. Bav-jw, as also by the 
Lat. ven-to, Ose. ben (ben-ust = venerit) and by the Goth. quam 
(quima, venio).— ga bears to daive (No. 407) the same relation 
that Ba does to Baivw, with the distinction, however, that in 
the case of the former root the nasal affix has established 
itself more firmly (€-dév-nv). To the shorter form which 
occurs in @y-pé, and which unites the conceptions ‘shine’ 
and ‘speak,’ corresponds the Skt. bid (bid-mi) ‘to shine,’ ‘to— 
appear,’ to the longer the Skt. bhan (later bhaz), that appears 
in the Vedas with a dental nasal in the sense of ‘ resound,’ 
‘ring,’ in later Sanskrit with a lingual nasal in that of ‘talk,’ 
‘speak.’ Similar is the relation of ra to refvw. The shortest 


INTRODUCTION. ia 


form is contained in the Homeric 74. From ta we arrive at 
the Gk. ré-vv-rar=Skt. ta-nu-té, in which the nasal affix 65 
seems to be used in the present-stem alone. But this is in- 
timately connected with the Gk. rayv- in compounds like 
Tavv-remdo-s, together with the Skt. adjective tant-s=tenu- 
a-s, ON. thunn-r, ChSl. ttn-t-kt. For refv-w=rTev-jo and all 
its belongings (No. 230), as also for the Lat. ten-e-o and 
ten-d-o, Goth. than-j-a, Lith. tem-p-jv (ep. Lat. tem-p-tare), we 
have to take the nasalized stem as equivalent to a root. 
Again, as ta is to tev, so is ra to rev, and so accordingly is 
ye-ya-os to é-yev-d-unyv (No. 128), in which words, however, 
may be observed the special tendency of Greek to suppress 
y after a. Notwithstanding ra must apparently be taken as 
the starting-point, and we are thus enabled to understand 
also the Lith. gim-ti, nasci, with its m, and this m points us 
back to the Gk. yd-y-o0s, yap-<iv (ep. below, p. 546). In two 
other roots the relation of the nasal is more obscure. To the 
root kpeu in Kpeua-pa (No. 75) corresponds directly the Goth. 
hram-j-an ‘to crucify, but it is so nearly approached also by 
the Lith. kdr-ti ‘to hang,’ that, seeing that metathesis is fre- 
quent in the case of 7, we may suppose kar to be the primitive 
form, from which first kra, then kram has developed. The 
root de in déw, di-dy-yi (No. 264) is identical with the Vedic 
da ‘to bind,’ but it is possible to suppose a connexion with the 
root dau, daydew, Skt. dam, Lat. domo, &c. (No. 260), and even 
with déu-w, déu-as, ddp-os (No. 265). 

Much more limited is the number of roots which seem to be 
increased by the addition of one of the two liquids / and r. 
Still a connexion cannot be denied between the roots pep 
(“€p-os, Lat. mer-eo, No. 467) and pe (ué-rpo-v, Skt. ma, No. 461), 
between oted (a7édA@, No. 218) and ota (Skt. stha, No. 216).— 
even the addition of a v is nearly certain at all events in the 
roots paf (Aeol. dados) by the side of pa (Skt. bhd, No. 407) 
and yaF (yad-vo-s, No. 179) by the side of ya. 

Let us here pause, leaving untouched for the present a 
number of other questions still more difficult to decide, and 
try to put together the results of this survey. It is certain 
that a considerable number of roots, of which as a rule we 
have been able to consider those only which have been pre- 


74 BOOK I. 


served in Greek, appear with little or no change of meaning 
in a two-fold form ; also that this two-fold form is occasionally 
applied to the formation of the tense-stems, or for some other 
variation of meaning affecting the verbal inflexions. But how 
was it that one form arose from the other? The question may 
first be asked, Are we warranted in calling the shorter form the 
primary and the longer the secondary one? J. Grimm has, as 
we have seen, from a comprehensive point of view, adjudged 
the priority to the longer form, at least for the circle of 
66 languages with which he was immediately concerned. But 
he does not venture to apply this principle throughout on a 
larger scale, a proceeding indeed which would necessitate an 
extreme of capriciousness. It will scarcely be maintained by 
the boldest that the root 6u is a mutilated form of 6uT, 6A or 
ode of dAek, the Skt. ju of jug'. We should be obliged to 
relinquish such an attempt especially in the cases where the 


’ This doctrine has, however, been again advanced in recent times, 
and that by Max Miiller (‘Chips, iv. 129). In principle at all events 
such is his opinion. He says: “It would be perfectly intelligible that 
such roots as mark, marg, mard, mardh, expressing different kinds of 
crushing, became fixed side by side, that by a process of elimination, 
their distinguishing features were gradually removed, and the root 
mar left as the simplest form, expressive of the most general mean- 
ing.” I want to know, however, where we are to find an actual example 
for this process? Over and over again we find simple units com- 
pounded to form a complicated whole. The end of the stem is always 
the place where new elements are attached: and are we here to 
recognize the opposite process? Further, supposing mar to be the 
product of this assumed ‘elimination,’ it would be unintelligible that 
marg, mard, etc. should still survive along side of it, and that these 
longer forms should in many cases not appear till later, and still more 
unintelligible that the elements which I have called determinatives 
should constantly occur in the formation of present stems, where 
there can be no question of anything but the addition of new ele- 
ments—that is to say, of composition. Even the assumption that the 
longer root—e. g. jug—had a more specific meaning than the shorter 
—e. 2. ju,—can be seldom proved. ‘The chief objection to my view— 
a view held, I believe, by many others—lies in the question, What 
are these modificatory letters? to which I can give my old and much 
respected friend no more satisfactory answer than what I have tried 
to give in the text, and more particularly in the note to p. 69. 


INTRODUCTION. 75 


root ending in a vowel is accompanied by several stems 
ending in different consonantal characteristics. We find, 
for instance, jug and judh by the side of ju, bhan, bhads and 
bhav by the side of bha, mad and mar by the side of ma 
(Gk. pe), stap, star and stal by the side of sta. 

Confident then that the shorter form is the older one, we 
must next inquire how the longer one arose from it. Here 
several possibilities are conceivable. In the first place it has 
been held that the longer form is to be referred to a noun-theme. 
According to this view Kuhn especially ‘Ztschr.’ ii. p. 392 ff., 
455 ff. (Corssen, 17. 306 expresses a similar view) attempts to 
trace back the nasal additions to derivative suffixes. With 
respect to the syllables nu and na, which are joined to the 
root in the present-stem, I now agree with him. But whether 
the bare nasals are to be so regarded is very doubtful. The 
other amplificatory affixes can certainly not be proved to be 
noun-suffixes: whatever may be the case with & and £, it is 
quite untenable with regard to p, g, s, d and dh unless 67 
recourse be had to the most audacious methods of proof. 
A second possible view, which has been repeatedly urged 
with regard to dh especially, is that amplified roots were real 
compounds. Here again the addition might be either a new 
verb-root or a pronominal one. The readiest way is to derive 
dh from the root dha ‘to place, ‘do’ (Gk. 6c). It is conceiv- 
able that €c-6-m and éo-6i-w may be divided thus—edé-6e and 
translated ‘I do eat.’ We are at once reminded of the familiar 
application of the same root in English and in almost all 
German dialects in the periphrasis for the simple verb-forms : 
he did not come and the like, phrases which Pott, 117. 475 has 
collected in great numbers. Still a considerable distinction is 
at once observable here. This dh=6 makes its way into 
noun-formations as well: Skt. ju-dh-man (strife=topuw), wa- 
6-os; it is even found often in nouns alone: ora-6-pés. We 
shall have therefore in any case to suppose that at a very 
early period all consciousness of this origin disappeared and 
that this appendage acquired completely the character of an 
element essential to the meaning of the stems in question. 
The amplificatory pis connected by Benfey (‘ Kurze Sanskrit- 
grammatik,’ p. 57, ep. Fick ‘Wtb.’ iv’. 83) with a root pa, a 


76 BOOK I. 


supposition that in a somewhat different form has met with 
Schleicher’s assent as well (‘Compend’.’ 344), at least to the 
extent that he derives the Sanskrit causal verbs in -pajd-ma 
e.g. dd-pa-jd-mi ‘I make to give’ from this root. But un- 
fortunately this root pa, with the meaning make, which is the 
only feasible one in the case of verb-stems with causal and 
other suffixes, is entirely hypothetical. All we can go upon is the 
substantive dpas= Lat. opus and a few related words, whence 
a root ap with this meaning is with some small probability 
inferred ; but the probability of a root pa with a transposition 
of the consonant is far smaller. For even though it must be 
admitted that special roots e.g. ak (ac-utu-s) and ka (No. 2) 
have their vowel now before, now after their characteristic con- 
sonant, this is of by no means so frequent occurrence that we 
should be entitled to assume it universally'. The Skt. root 
am ‘press forward, whence comes dma-s ‘vehemence, and ma 
‘measure, an ‘breathe’ and the na ‘spin, which must be 
assumed for the Gk. vé-w, are perfectly distinct from each 
68 other. The attempt to prop up the hypothetical pa ‘do,’ from 
the Gk. zroléw, seems to me likewise a failure. 7rové-m is seen 
at once to be a derivative. Benfey, with the approval of 
several eminent scholars, compares it with the Skt. apas-ja-mi, 
a denominative from the above-mentioned dpas, derived from 
it as operor is from opus, with the meaning ‘I am busy.’ But 
this apas-ja-mi in Greek letters would be dzec-to, like teaec 
Tedeo-L@ Which gives TeAefwm, and even were we willing to 
admit that the root vowel had fallen away in a manner 
unexampled in Greek, and that in the place of the ¢, which we - 
should expect to find in the suffix as an o had appeared, we 
should after all have arrived only at zrof and should be forced 
to assume a substantive-stem zrovo Nom. zroio-s with the mean- 
ing operator, in order thence to proceed to a zrové-m in the sense 


* Albert Kiihn, in his essay ‘Ueber Wurzelvariation durch Meta- 
thesis,’ Bonn, 1868, makes the most extensive use of the supposition 
of transpositions of this kind, but certainly goes too far in doing so. 
Clear instances of different meaning in the case of sounds which are 
identical but are arranged in different ways, like those cited in the 
text, should serve to teach us caution. Cp. Kraushaar ‘De Radicum 
quarundum Variatione,’ Marburg, 1869. 


INTRODUCTION. 77 


of operator sum. I confess I find this too long a journey, and 
moreover hold it to be far from immaterial that zroveiy does 
not mean operari but ‘to create, ‘to produce, and so is removed 
even in meaning from opus and operart. Attempts such as 
those made by Benfey (‘ Kieler Monatsschrift 1854,’ p. 35) to 
explain these affixes in the case of other verb-stems are still 
less convincing. Even Pott says (W. i. 1245) that there is 
only a ‘distant possibility ’ that the g in jug may have arisen 
from ag (dye, ago). 

Another way out of the difficulty would be to consider 
pronoun-stems as the source of these appended suffixes, or 
at least of some of them. But on a review of pronoun-stems 
we shall. find at most only the stems ka, ta, da and na with 
which the appended &, ¢, d and n may be connected. If this 
assumption is made we shall have to assign to these affixes, 
the same origin as to the suffixes used to form noun-stems. 
But evidently the function of the two elements is very 
different. The amplification of roots is—in its beginning at 
all events—a phenomenon of clearly older date than any 
formation of nouns, inasmuch as the coinage of different 
verb-forms itself pre-supposes a lengthening of stems. It 
is a kind of word-formation antecedent to the process of 
word-formation, or, in other words, an older stratum of for- 
mation, over which the system of inflexion and stem-formation 
in use in historic times has been deposited. But as regards the 
origin of these additions we have hardly any other course left 
us for the present at least than to confess that we know 
nothing about it. We stand here on a boundary beyond 
which, at least for the present, our view does not extend. 
Accordingly we consider all these sounds as elements of such 
a kind as, without being reckoned among formative suffixes 
“serve,” as Pott‘ E. F.’ i’. 172, says “to convey definiteness of 
significance” (‘dienen dem Principe der Bedeutsamkeit’), a ¢9 
view which is not very far removed from that which Lobeck 
expresses of his idea—further developed in the ‘Rhematikon ’— 
in a note to Buttmann’s ‘ Ausf. Gr.’ ii. p. 63, where he calls 
consonants like + in xAérr@, 0 in &xPouar ‘auxiliary con- 
sonants’ (Hiilfs-consonanten). Similarly J. Grimm ‘Ueber 
Diphthonge, p. 63, speaks of an older and a younger and 


78 BOOK I. 


stronger generation of roots: “In the place of roots ending in 

a vowel with many meanings and easily confounded, such as 

appear in oriental languages, there seems to exist a tendency 

in the European languages, and especially in German, to confer 

on roots by means of added consonants a greater individuality.” 
(Cp. Heyse ‘System,’ p. 128.) 

These affixes therefore may be called—in accordance with 

a name proposed by me (‘ Ztschr.’ iy. 211 ff.) for the province 

of noun-formation — root-determinatives (Wurzel-determina- 

zo tive’). In some branches of the Indo-Germanic family roots 


1 Corssen (‘ Beitrage zur lateinischen Formenlehre,’ p. 116) makes 
a two-fold objection to this name. He finds the expression Deter- 
minative not definite enough, because in reality every suffix used in 
the formation of words is determinative. But since for these the 
name suffix is already in general use—a word which is itself of a very 
indefinite nature, but which has become, however, sufficiently fixed by 
use—and since by the addition of the word root the special reference 
to these primary elements of language is made clear, it seems to me 
that sufficient distinctness is obtained. Of more importance is a 
second objection, which expresses more definitely a view that has 
been urged against me from other quarters as well. Corssen says 
“he cannot conceive how pure bald consonants with no vowel sounded 
with them, which taken by themselves are unpronounceable elements 
of sound, sound-monads existing only in the mind....could be 
originally affixed by themselves to roots to give distinctness to their 
meaning.” This, which is to me equally inconceivable, is a view 
I never expressed: all I did was to maintain that the origin of the 
determinative had not been explained. Nor do I see my way to 
exclude the possibility that these consonants were in pre-historic 
times accompanied by vowels. Those who regard the root dha as 
the origin of the determinative dA cannot help assuming the loss of an 
a, or the treatment of this element as a thematic vowel. This is not 
the only instance in which philologists have to reckon with unknown 
quantities, and they have to be content sometimes in such cases to 
arrange them, to classify them, and to determine their functions. 
A name by which we distinguish a certain class of such elements 
from the others seems to me by no means worthless. If, however, 
any hypothesis is to be hazarded as to the origin of the root-deter- 
minatives, it seems to me two possible ones are presented to us. It is 
conceivable that during the period when roots were originated, lan- 
guage created duplicate roots—a short one, and a longer one with an 
affixed consonant and a kindred meaning. This is Max Miiller’s 


INTRODUCTION. 79 


of this younger kind are used by preference. It is to be 
noted that J. Grimm allows to the German and also the 
Slavonic languages only a small number of roots ending in 
a vowel, while in Sanskrit, Greek, and Latin a considerable 
number have been retained. 


9. 


In our endeavour to subject the methods of comparative 
philology to a comprehensive criticism, we saw that there 
were two errors of frequent occurrence, against which we 
must be on our guard; the one an unwarrantably high esti- 
mation of the importance of Sanskrit, the other an excessively 
minute analysis of roots. The consideration of the latter 
point necessitated a short discussion of the idea of a root, 
from which we were led to the question of the possible 
shifting elements to be found in the root. In direct contrast 
to this excessive analysis and decomposition of roots is the 
attempt made by some comparative etymologists, wherever 


opinion (‘ Lect.’ ii, 312): he assumes clusters of roots, * differing from 
each other merely by one or two letters,” and in this respect (cp. above, 
p- 57) puts the initial and the final letter on a level. In this view there 
is no assumption of the addition of letters. The second possible 
hypothesis is that of an expansion by means of composition, in which 
case we should have to recognize in those single consonants weather- 
worn stems, possibly with a special meaning, possibly with a general 
domonstrative force. It has been shown above that this hypothesis has 
been brought to some degree of probability only in the case of the root 
dha, compared with dh. It seems to me that the second supposition, 
which is adopted also by Carl Pauli (‘ Zur Geschichte der lat. Verba 
auf wo, p. 7) is more in accordance with the results arrived at by the 
science in other quarters, but as long as the greatest part of these 
elements remains in such obscurity I prefer to regard the question as 
an open one. In my essay ‘Zur Chronologie der indogermanischen 
Sprachforschung’ (2nd edition) I have advanced my views as to the 
whole question of the gradual creation of the Indo-Germanic form of 
speech, and in this connexion have also (p. 25 ff.) touched on this sub- 
ject again. Repeated reference has been made above to Fick’s ‘ Nach- 
wort’ to his ‘Worterbuch,’ where he adopts the terminology here 
proposed, 


80 BOOK I. 


they can, to prove entire words unmistakeably related to each 
other to be completely identical. From this tendency Pott 
among etymologists is tolerably free. He has repeatedly (again 
ii”. 897, 935) and emphatically asserted that we must distinguish 
between partial and complete identity, and must not deny to 
language the right of deriving different words from one root 
or one stem by means of different suffixes. On the other 
hand, an attempt has been made, first by Kuhn and Ebel, then, 
to a much greater extent, by Benfey and Leo Meyer, to prove 
the identity of suffixes of different sound from the fact that 
71 they are added with similar meaning to the same stems; and 
this attempt finally results in the above-mentioned endeavour 
to raise partial to the rank of complete resemblance. Adalb. 
Kuhn has tried to prove (‘ Ztschr.’ i. 368 ff.) that the Sanskrit 
suffix as, much used, especially in neuters—as representative 
of which the Gk. es Nom. os, and the Lat. es (nom. us) had been 
long recognized,— arose from af, and he finally arrives at the 
result that not only these forms but the suffixes ar, an, ant as 
well all arose from one and the same primitive form. For 
Sanskrit some of the changes of sound here maintained can 
be established, especially that of final s to 7. But if we seek 
for analogous cases, in order for example to prove e.g. the 
asserted change of the older tdos—the dative tde does not 
actually occur before Hesiod ‘Opp.’ 61—to édwp, and the 
origin of both in ddar, we are referred at p. 374 to the 
asserted identity of the syllables dp: and ép: with the Skt. 
ati. But this single analogous case is a very suspicious one. 
To the Skt. ati (ultra, nimis) corresponds, as is universally 
acknowledged, the Gk. ér., the Lat. et, and most likely the at 
in at-avu-s. The emphasizing and superlative force of gp: and 
épt, as to the difference between which Buttmann’s observa- 
tions ‘ Lexil.’ i. 147 are still quite worth reading, has only a 
very limited resemblance to that of the Skt. ati in com- 
position. Not a trace is to be found in the use of dps and épu 
of the primitive meaning ‘out over,’ which is unmistakeably 
prominent e.g. in ati-mdtra-s ‘excessive, and ati-rdtra-s 
‘lasting over-night.’ The use of api is rather one which 
reminds us much of pri, dprio-s. apTiPpov w 261 means 
‘right-minded, like apippav, dpriemis X 281 ‘rightly speak- 


INTRODUCTION. 81 


ing. If we consider further that from the notions of ‘fitting 
aright’ and ‘suiting’ the Greek gets the metaphysical con- 
ceptions contained in dppevos, apnpds, dpé-oK-w and its nearly 
related dpe-r7, we shall be much inclined to refer ap-c to this 
very root and to connect it with dpi-cros, dpeiwy (No. 488). 
We meet the same letters in Sanskrit too with a similar 
meaning in the adverb dra-m ‘aright, ‘fitly,’ ‘sufficiently.’ Cf. 
Jolly ‘Infinitiv, p. 125. Why then seek so far for an origin 
for apt, when it lies so near at hand? As to épz, whose 
meaning Buttmann was for connecting with evpds, I will not 
too positively assert its identity with dp., though it happens 
that the vowels ¢ and « interchange before p more often than 
before other consonants. It is moreover possible that it may 
be connected with Skt. varv%, which, on account of vdrija-s, we 
must suppose as an older form of wrtvi-s=evpv-s. In that case 
the digamma would have disappeared without a trace. How- 
ever that may be, what has been said is quite enough to 72 
discredit the association of the two prefixes, as far as mean- 
ing goes, with ati. After all, who can believe that the ¢ which 
is of such constant and universal occurrence in inflexions and 
derivatives, which we see pass, through the influence of a 
neighbouring ¢ or v into a, in a few cases became p? No case 
of anything like such an occurrence can be found. 

If an attempt is to be made to establish a change of sound 
hitherto seldom or never heard of, the cases used to support it 
must be clear and beyond a doubt, in accordance with the rule 
which Herodotus lays down for his investigation (11. 33) rotcc 
Euhavéot Ta pn) ylvwokopeva Tekpapopevos. Although the 
change of m7, «xr in the middle of a word into 6d and yd 
cannot be proved by any unmistakeable analogies}, no one 
will deny that €Gdouos and dydoos come from éemrd and oxo. 
Is this case a similar one? No, precisely opposite. We see 
that, by means of a multiplicity of suffixes, a large number of 
words are derived from roots—not one from each root, but 
ever so many. Everything inclines us to ascribe to the 
language of those old times before the separation of the Indo- 


1 We have an example of an initial yé for cr in ydotmos by the side 
of xrvmos (cf. p. 698). 
G 


82 BOOK I. 


Germanic tongues an exuberant energy of growth. That the 
many words which spring from one root are not to be arranged 
under the abstract categories into which the grammarians have 
invented, that, on the other hand, very many suffixes were used 
to denote the same categories, I have shown in my dissertation 
‘De nominum Graecorum formatione. It does not of course 
follow that the numerous primitive words which sprang from 
one root were completely identical in meaning. The differ- 
ences must have been of a somewhat physical and concrete 
kind, and we must consider that the real function of the suf- 
fixes was that of individualizing a word. Seeing then that 
from the one root wd there was made in Skt. ud-dn (water) = 
Goth. vato (st. vatin) by means of the suffix an, and again the 
ud-rd which comes near to the OSax. wat-ar, why should 
we not here suppose an original double formation with -no 
perceptible difference of meaning? With this udrd ud-ar ranks 
the Gk. tdwp, which can hardly be connected with the stem of 
the other cases vdar except through ddapr. This assumed 
vdap-7 is stronger than udar by ar. But I regard this 7 (ef. 
Skt. gakrt, Lat. yecur) as a superadded suffix with an indi- 
vidualizing force, for which see further ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 211 ff. The 
73 dative de (cf. Rzach ‘Dialekt des Hesiod.’ p. 416) is to be re- 
ferred to a s- stem des, of possibly independent formation. 
Meeting as we do in all stages of word-formation not with 
meagre uniformity but with manifold variety, why should we 
try, in the face of all phonetic laws, to weld these suffixes into 
one? In my opinion it is not even allowable to identify off- 
hand suffixes nearer to each other in sound than these are. 
Although in certain circumstances ¢ passes into s I venture to 
bring together neither the suffixes with ¢ with those with s, 
nor even the pronoun-stem ta with sa. It seems to me that 
in all these cases it is safer to separate than to join. Even for 
the marking of such relations as in their simple and, one may 
almost say, palpable nature seem least to give an opportunity 
for it, the Indo-Germanic language makes use of different pho- 
netic expedients: we find wpépos, primus, Goth. fruma by the 
side of mp@ros and pra-tha-md-s; we have two comparative 
suffixes and a great variety of diminutive forms. From one 
and the same root an (No. 419) are formed, with the same 


- 


INTRODUCTION. 83 


meaning and different suffixes, Skt. an-i-ld-s, Gk. dv-€-[L0-$ 
(= Lat. an-i-mu-s), OHG. wn-s-t. From the root par ‘fill’ (Gk. 
and Lat. plé) spring 7A7%-0-os, plé-bé-s, OHG. fol-c, with only 
slight difference of meaning, though we should not be justified 
in identifying the formative syllables in these words as well 
as the root. We have a redundancy in the case of the two 
ChSl. words ple-meg (tribus) and pli-kt, which is identical 
with Volk. Sanskrit itself, though that is the language in 
which all these attempts at identifying suffixes have their 
origin, shows from the beginning an extraordinary variety in 
its formations. We have from the root ad ‘eat,’ the substan- 
tives dd-ana-m, dn-na-m (i. e. ad-na-m), dd-nam, dd-ja-m, with 
no difference or, at all events, no sensible difference of meaning, 
all having the sense of‘ fodder, ‘eating, ‘nourishment,’ while in 
the Gk. €d-@d7, €d-nrv-s, in the Lat. es-ca, in the Lith. éd-i-s 
(st. dja), other suffixes are used for the same purpose. From 
the root da ‘give, are formed, with the meaning of a nomen 
agentis, datdr (=dornp, dator) and dd-jd-s, dd-ja-ka-s ‘ giving, 
dd-ru-s‘ generous, to denote a ‘gift’ dd-na-m (=ddnum),dd-man, 
da-trd-m. Why then try to derive the Gk. d@-po-y from such 
a word as dd-na-m, and that too when we find the same double 
form in Slavonic and Lithuanian? A ‘gift’ in Lith. is a-ni-s 
with an n-suffix, in ChSL da-rt% with an r-suffix. Again 
-ti occurs in just the same sense in the Skt. dd-ti-s = 66-r-1-s 
= Lat. dd-t-(z)-s. From the root gan ‘beget’ is formed gan-i-tar 
=yeveTnp, genitor, gan-aka-s, gdn-i-tva-s ‘father, gdn-as = 
yévos, genus, and in the same sense the common gun-us and, 
with a slight difference of meaning, gdn-i-man, gd-t-i-s = 
gen(ti-)s, gan-ti-s, gd-na-m, gdu-a-na-m, gani-s (cp. Goth. 74 
kunt). Seeing then that the same language has recourse, as 
far back as we can trace it, to a number of suffixes, and that 
in the related languages now this suffix and now that one has 
come into use exclusively, or at least mainly, for a definite pur- 
pose, there is absolutely no inducement to us to identify suf- 
fixes that are different in sound. The chief supporter of the 
method here combated is Leo Meyer, in the second volume 
of his ‘Vel. Gr. des Gr. u. Lat.’ He there carries to its extreme 
a theory of word-formation which has been aptly termed the 
‘participial theory.’ This theory, most decisively rejected by 
G 2 


84 BOOK I. 


Pott ii2. 936, W. i. 416 and by Corssen, e.g. ‘Ausspr.’ 17. 585, 
and controverted on excellent grounds by Sonne (‘Ztschr.’ xii. 
285) and lately subjected to a keen and luminous criticism by 
Zimmer ‘Das Nominalsuffix @ und 4G,’ p. 1-22, rests on the 
entirely arbitrary assumption of Benfey’s, that the participles, 
and particularly the present participle active, are of older date 
than a number of other noun-forms. Benfey really rests this 
assertion solely on the extraordinary idea that the suffix of 
this participle -ant has arisen from the 38rd pl. termination 
-anti, i.e. that bharant=gepovr came from bharanti = Dor. 
pépovrt. I doubt whether a single person shares this opinion. 
Still Leo Meyer makes the suffix -ant the starting-point for 
his argument, and seeks to show that, by means of weakening 
and loss of sounds, a large number of the commonest noun- 
suffixes have arisen from this -ant and its collateral form, with 
an added a,-anta. According to him among other forms -as, e.g. 
in Skt. Gdn-as=yév-os, genus, -an, dn, e.g. in and-dv, aib-av, 
-ana, @.g. in Tpvm-avo-yv, -ala, e.g. in tk-edo-s, -ara, e.g. In 
Aum-apo-s, -na, e.g. In dei-vd-s, are one and all only various 
phases of this -ant. Definite analogies for the assumed changes 
of sound are seldom brought forward; the requisition of such 
analogies is even styled in so many words a vain pedantry, 
and appeal is made to tendencies of sound which look to the 
future for recognition. It seems that our Indo-Germanic 
ancestors, whom Leo Meyer does not allow to have ranged 
at will in the case of roots and verb-terminations through 
such sounds as ¢, s, n, 2 and 7, took a special fancy to destroy 
in the one case of noun-suffixes all that had been previously 
created, however convenient, allowing all the while the old 
suffix-forms to live on side by side with the new ones. While 
the modern science of language is at pains to reveal in all other 
cases a governing rational principle in language, this theory 
75 would enthrone, at least in this province of linguistic forma- 
tions, the merest chance as a destroyer of sound, and while it 
is elsewhere held to be proved that what is purely accidental 
does not come within the province of scientific knowledge, the 
power is claimed in this case of unravelling the serpentine 
windings of this game of ‘chance, and that too often with an 
assurance which proposes to trample all doubt under foot. 


a 


INTRODUCTION. 85 


Kven the supporters of the participial theory—which might 
just as well be called the Proteus theory—assume that noun- 
suffixes have arisen from pronoun-stems. They would very 
probably admit that their favourite -ant is itself a compound 
of an and ta. But then what in the world can warrant the 
assertion that the former of these two stems is never used by 
itself, but that rather where -an actually occurs it is a de- 
formed -ant ? 

In our review of the store of words possessed by the Greek 
language attention will hereafter constantly be drawn to 
the existence of a diversified variety, and also to the fact 
that origin from one and the same root by no means implies 
the use of the same suffix even where the meaning is the 
same. J make no attempt to prove the identity of lacruma 
(No. 10) with the Gk. dékpu or déxpv-o-v, of SéxTvAo-s or Lat. 
digitu-s (No. 11) with the OHG. zéhd, of i-6-s ‘arrow’ with 
the Skt. ish-u-s, in the suffix as well as in the rest of the word, 
but am content to point out the identity of the root and of the 
meaning. It is easy to find many ways of explaining how it 
can exist in both these points without existing in the third. 
In the first place, for instance, it is certain that in many cases 
several forms from one single root existed side by side, even 
before the separation of the languages, with but a slight dif- 
ference of usage; a fact of which we find numerous proofs in 
every language; and it has happened that one language has 
kept one form and another another, though we are not able— 
and this is specially difficult in the case of names for external 
objects—to perceive any difference of meaning between them. 
Again we may be allowed to attribute, even to the time sub- 
sequent to the separation, so much remains of vital energy as 
would serve, not merely to maim and disfigure the suftixes, but 
to amplify them and make them ramify afresh on recognized 
patterns, which, however, have not always been preserved to 
us. Seeing that e.g. Latin, even after its separation from the 
primitive Greeco-Italic stock, was able from the stem gnd-te 
(Gk. yvo-cl-s), apparently already existing, to form gno-ti-on 
(nom. gnd-ti-d)' by adding a second suflix, why not credit the 

1 Another origin for the Lat. -tidn—though likewise from two 
suffixes (tj@+na)—has been maintained by Leo Meyer, ‘Orient u. 


86 BOOK T. 


Greeks with the power of occasionally assuming a 7 indepen- 


76 dently1, especially as the absolute identification of all related 


and synonymous words is a goal that cannot be reached even 
by the boldest etymologist? The « of the Persian word omd-k-a 
=xtv-a (No. 84), mentioned by Herodotus, we shall be obliged 
to allow to stand as an additional formative affix, while the 
stem o7a can by Persian phonetic rules be derived from cvan 
=xvoyv. If the Persians, however, could individualize this name 
for an animal by &, why not other nations by other sounds ? 
To prove new changes of sound we need striking cases, but no 
comparison can be a striking one unless meaning and form 
both coincide. A clearly defined meaning, however, can be 
said to belong to but very few suffixes. It follows that as a 
rule one of the two chief factors disappears when a comparison 
is made between suffixes. If then the sounds are different as 
well, and it is an assured fact that by the addition of different 
suffixes to like roots of similar meaning are produced, what 
becomes of the cogency of the argument ? 


10. 


The error against which we have thought the above warn- 
ing necessary, arose from a tendency to ascribe to the Indo- 
Germanic language, before it branched off, as it did later, into 
its several divisions, the largest possible supply of perfect 
words with a determinate sound and meaning. There is 
another mistake akin to this—that of identifying words of 
similar meaning even when the identification is not supported 


Occident,’ 11. 586 ff. Compare the fruitful investigations of Osthoff 
‘Zur Geschichte des schwachen deutschen Adjectivums,’ Jena, 1876. 

‘I entirely agree with Osthoff (ut supra, p. 92) that this process 
should be supposed to have taken place ‘ only on existing patterns, 
and where there is a substratum of a proportionate number of 
established precedents.’ In the first volume of his ‘ Forschungen im 
Gebiete der nominalen Stammbildung’ (Jena, 1875), Osthoff has in 
my opinion given satisfactory proof that even the form -clo in Latin 


is to be traced to the suffix -ira, a suffix which possesses a very 
definite meaning. 


INTRODUCTION. 87 


by evident similarity of sound. It is true there are parts of 
the vocabulary in which similarity of meaning carries great 
weight, even when accompanied by a certain difference of 
sound. It is plain e.g. that the numerals, excepting the first 
and those over a hundred, were determined at a very early 
period, and it is scarcely conceivable that a single language 
has taken a way of its own in reference to one of these much- 77 
used words. Accordingly, though évvéa is by no means so much 
like the Skt. ndévan or Lat. novem as we should like, certainly 
no one will attempt to separate it from them. The number 
of the pronominal-stems is small, but the personal pronouns 
are derived from a specially limited number of stems. Ac- 
cordingly, if Hesychius’ gloss ‘rpé oé Kpfres’ has been 
transmitted to us without any error, we have no choice but to 
declare both forms identical with the Skt. tva. For it is in 
the last degree improbable that in vpé we encounter a special 
stem for this pronoun that is heard of nowhere else. The 
number of prepositions is considerably larger, but the list in 
each language may soon be passed under review. It seems to 
me therefore to be not very probable that within one and the 
same language we should find, alongside of the regular prepo- 
sitions which are fixed by the most constant use, other words 
of the same class, isolated, but in full use, and moreover com- 
pletely identical in meaning with the regular ones. I could 
not agree with Corssen when he impugned the identity of the 
Lat. d, au, af with ab and that of @ with ec and ew (‘Beitr.’ 510, 
426). JI am pleased to see that he subsequently (‘Ausspr.’ 1’. 
152) allowed at least that of @ with ab and that of @ with ex. 
As Corssen remarks at p. 395 of the ‘ Beitrage’ with regard to 
the identification of pédo with zrépdw, and of péerare with per- 
jurare, the connexion is too directly obvious to be disallowed. 
These small words which have no independent existence are 
not to be measured by the same rule as nouns and verbs’. In 
their close connexion with words possessing more meaning 
they were exposed to more manifold ravages and disfigure- 


1 T have dwelt at greater length on these points in my essay, 
‘Ueber die Tragweite der Lautgesetze, Ber. der k. sachs. Ges. d. 
Wissensch. 1870, answered by Corssen in his opus postwmum, ‘ Bei- 
triage zur italischen Sprachkunde,’ p. 429. 


88 BOOK I. 


ments. How easy it was for the ¢ in é-mendo, é-neco to fall 
out after the analogy of limen (luc-men), li-na (lue-na) and 
for @ to take regularly the place of ec even when used 
separately! Ab may also have passed through abs to as and 
so to d, so that @ would be to as as tra to trans. Even though 
we here still look in vain for analogies for particular phonetic 
processes, it seems to me more prudent to hold fast to the 
identity of these synonymous words than to make new com- 
binations, which would lose probability in another direction. 
7g A similar, if not the same, decision may be arrived at also 
as to the names for objects and conceptions, which apparently, 
from primitive times downwards, were provided among the 
Indo-Germanic peoples with fixed and much-used names ; this 
is the case with names of relationships and of domestic animals 
and of the commonest beasts of prey. Grassmann was the 
first to explain clearly the phonetic relation of @vyarep to the 
Skt. duhitdr (‘Ztschr, xii. 126). Still before this everybody 
justly connected the two words. A Latin p does not often 
correspond to a Greek x. Still I connect lupu-s (No. 89) with 
AvKo-s (for FAvxos) and the Skt. u’kas, because I find it more 
easy to believe that in this case the & has, contrary to the rule, 
become p, than that the Romans used for the beast of prey 
which has always been the most dreaded a name that was not 
the primitive one, although almost identical in sound. After 
all we do actually find some few analogies for p=k. Of more 
recent etymologists Hugo Weber is the d:a:petixdéraros. I find 
myself differing from him constantly in maintaining the con- 
nexion of several stems of the same meaning which may be 
phonetically brought together, e.g. Nos. 187, 188. | 
The farther, however, we go from this kind of words and 
advance into a region where the conception, and with it the 
name, has a larger range allowed to it, the less we are able to 
decide from an agreement in meaning when not accompanied 
by complete agreement in sound. The Greeks had many 
names for individual Gods. How much more, then, shall we 
be justified in assuming, with respect to the general word for 
God, that the. _Indo-Germanie nation felt ‘Namen nennen thn 
nicht, and accordingly made from the beginning different 
attempts at finding a name? Hence it is that the several 


erat 2 


INTRODUCTION, 89 


nations of the same stem differ so greatly from each other in 
these names. Out of many primitive ones there remains here 
one and there another, doubtless not without connexion with 
the national conception of the Deity. It is the fact that even 
peoples so nearly related as the Slaves and the Lithuanians 
have different names for God. The less right have we, as I 
still maintain against Max Miiller (‘ Chips, iv. 229 ff.), Ascoli 
(‘Studj Critici,’ 11. 382 ff), seeing that there is a difference in 
the initial letter which is not satisfactorily explained—to con- 
nect 6«6-s and deu-s. Now the same holds good also in the 
ease of other words of a less metaphysical stamp. Bopp’s‘Glos- 
sary’ may furnish us with a few examples. mvAn and porta 
there find themselves placed with a ‘fortasse’ under the Skt. 
dvara-m ‘door, a connexion of which we shall certainly not 
be convinced by the analogy there adduced between the Pers. 
acpa and the Skt. d¢va (equus), because, while in the latter 
case v in the middle of the word is changed to p by means of 
a neighbouring ¢, in the former an even bolder assumption of 7? 
corruption of sound at the beginning of the word would have 
to be made without any such reason; and moreover it is @vpa 


that is the Greek representative of the abovementioned Skr. 


dvara-m, which I have no doubt is a corruption of dhvdra-m 
(No. 319). Still bolder is it to compare, as is done, with 
another ‘fortasse, at p. 240 of the 8rd edition (cp. Pott 1’, 
345), dipa‘e Bia pro wipa’ with the Skt. pi-pa-st of the 
same meaning, or (p. 244) the Lat. urb-s ‘litteris transpositis’ 
with the Skt. purf-s ‘town.’ Of the suspicious character of 
such propositions their author was himself aware, though he 


held to them firmly to the end of his life; few will be found 


to agree with him now. Still there is no lack of later attempts 
in a similar direction, among which I reckon that of Legerlotz 
to identify the German schwarz with the Greek pédas (‘Ztschr. 
vii. 134). In referring then to these attempts, our sole object 
has been to find the origin of the mistake. Language arrives 
at the same idea by means of the most different signs. The Skt. 
puri (also purt, ptira) for pari=ér-s (No. 374) comes un- 
doubtedly from the root par, eA, Ac, and denoted originally the 
idea of ‘fulness,’ of a ‘crowd,’ a ‘throng, from which later the 
idea ‘town’ is developed even without this physical conception. 


8 


So 


90 BOOK I. 


The Greeks themselves were conscious of the relation of woAcs 
to moAdoi. Even in Plato (‘Republ.’ i. p. 369 c), aristocrat 
though he was, there is a reference, as Steinthal (‘ Gesch. d. 
Sprachw.’ 82) points out, to this etymology. On the other hand, 
doru for Facrv=Skt. vastu (No. 206), from the root vas ‘to 
dwell,’ has attained to the same idea from the more general 
conception of ‘dwelling,’ ‘an inhabited place, which is still in 
Sanskrit associated with the word vastu. A sense of the 
difference has been actually preserved in Greek in the more 
political meaning of wéAcs and the purely local one of dorv. 
By the side of urb-s, the etymology of which is still doubtful, 
the Romans have their word op-pidu-m, which I (cp. Schweizer 
‘Ztschr. 1i. 854) derive from pedu-m (cp. Pedum)=Gk. rédo-y, 
Skt. padd-m (No. 291) and ob ‘on,’ ‘near, ‘over,’ and interpret 
it accordingly as originally ‘what lies on or over the open 
oround ’—a compound like am-segetes, quorum ager viam tangit 
(Paul. p. 21), am-termint, qui circa terminos provinciae manent 
(ib. 17); hence may also be derived the old use of oppida for 
the barriers of a race-course (ib. 184), which lie on, over the 
arena. Seeing then that in this manner every language is 
wont to have a number of synonymous words for the same 
idea, the discovery of the etymon is a very difficult task. 
Even when there is no difficulty in reconciling the sounds, we 
can sometimes arrive at nothing more than a certain measure 
of probability. When, however, objections arise from the fixed 
phonetic habits of a language we are at once on dangerous 
eround. Pott warns us repeatedly in his writings against 
‘that Siren, similarity of sound,’ and it is certainly a charac- 
teristic distinction between the sober, well-regulated etymology 
which we aim at and the wild etymology of earlier times, that 
for us mere similarity of sound not only counts for little, but is 
actually, when the relation of words of different languages is 
in question, a positive reason for denying the connexion. Max 
Miller (‘ Lectures,’ 11. 243) states this in the following witty 
way, ‘sound etymology has nothing to do with sound,’—a 
saying which, however, might easily be misunderstood. But 
we must also beware of a fairy, related to the above-mentioned 
Siren, namely, similarity of meaning, and must avoid its in- 
fluence with equal care. When properly examined, similarity 


INTRODUCTION, QO] 


of sound, like similarity of meaning, turns out to be in many 
eases a matter of pure chance, and in no way fundamental. 
If there really had occurred in the history of language such 
very sporadic variations and completely diseased and un- 
accountable corruptions of sound as are confidently assumed 
by many scholars, we should be obliged to renounce etymolo- 
vising altogether. For it is only what is regular, and internally 
coherent, that can be scientifically investigated; what is 
arbitrary can at most be guessed at, never decided with cer- 
tainty. The case is however, I believe, not quite so bad as 
that; we shall be able to hold fast by laws and rules, even 
though allowing occasional exceptions and deviations; and to 
treat our word-stores to a great extent on the same principles 
as those used by Bopp to discover the formative structure of 
the Indo-Germanic languages with all its firmly established 
regularity. 


Ap 


Now if we ask what is the surest method of solving the 
problem we have set ourselves, we shall find that it is necessary 
before all things, without making precipitate attempts at dis- 
covering the ultimate elements of language, to select from the 
word-stores of each single language that which appears, on 
simple and directly convincing principles, to be related to the 
stores of the cognate languages, to place what appears to be 
so related together, and thus to prepare the way for a general 
view of the common stores of the whole group of languages on 
the one hand, and of the special inheritance of each separate 
language on the other. This simple collection of related words 
is so far radically distinct from investigation of roots, inasmuch 
as the question as to the root of two related words is here 
often quite disregarded. But where a number of words are 81 
unmistakeably to be referred to one root, which has a cor- 
responding form in the cognate languages, the comparison of 
roots is naturally not excluded. Comparison of words is much 
more productive than comparison of roots; inasmuch as in 
considering the wide-spread agreement of several languages, in 
the case of words formed with similar sound and meaning, we 


92 BOOK I. 


catch a glimpse of an old world of intellectual life and of 
common national views and ideas, which form the background 
of the individual life of every people. If starting from Greek 
we are to attempt on this principle to collect all words in the 
cognate languages that clearly correspond to Greek words, our 
first object must be to obtain criteria of relationship. We see 
at once that we have here to deal with two kinds of cor- 
respondence—that of sound and that of sense. On each of 
these two points something still remains to be said here. 

With regard to the correspondence of sound, this is the 
point from which we must always start. Where there is pho- 
netic agreement, there exists within the circle of the kindred 
languages a presumption of relationship. We have, it is true, 
already seen that phonetic agreement is not to be understood 
in the sense of similarity of sound, which often is a matter of 
pure chance. It is precisely in the life of sounds that fixed. 
laws may be discovered which act almost with the consistency 
of the forces of nature. Phonetic laws are the one sure 
foundation of all rational etymology. For this reason the law 
of the ‘ shifting’ of sounds discovered by Jacob Grimm inau- 
gurated almost as completely a new epoch for the science of 
language as did the acquisition of Sanskrit. By its means the 
Teutonic languages have obtained their fixed place in the 
entire Indo-Germanic stock, like planets in the solar system. 
And now that the discovery is made every rational investiga- 
tion of a single language must begin with the question, How 
are the sounds of this language related to those of the kindred 
ones? Since such investigations with reference to the com- 
munity of stock which embraces all these kindred languages 
have been undertaken in many quarters, it has become possible 
to determine approximately the list of sounds which the 
original Indo-Germanic language possessed before it was 
broken up into its various divisions and sub-divisions. In 
general agreement with Schleicher (who begins his ‘Compen- 
dium’ with a similar review) I have always assumed for this 
original Indo-Germanic language the following list of sounds? 


* In denoting the sounds—at least as far as the main distinctions 
are concerned—I adopt the theory which was arrived at by a physio- 


INTRODUCTION. 93 


which must naturally form the starting-point for the con- 
sideration of the Greek sounds. 

a. The vowels a@ituwu. 

b. The consonants : ° 

1. Explosive or momentary sounds (mutae)— 


k g gh 
t ad dh 
p b (2) bh 
2. Fricative or con- PA ERS ity 
oy ee nasals, ; | liquids, 8 ( Spirants. 
m v 


The guttural nasal—corresponding to the Greek y before 
gutturals—is here denoted by . For aspirates I have set 
down the soft aspirates which (as I have argued at length 
in ‘Zeitschrift, 11. 821 sqq., and as is now pretty generally 
admitted) must certainly be assumed to have existed in the 
original Indo-Germanic language, in order to explain the 
various consonants in the kindred languages which corre- 
spond to the Sanskrit gh (h), dh, bh. A difference of opinion 
still exists as to whether the language of that time possessed, 
like Sanskrit, not only the soft but also the hard aspirates kh, 
th, ph, and whether the Greek y, 0, ¢ in some degree corre- 
spond to these. I agree decidedly with Grassmann (‘ Ztschr.’ 
xii. 81 ff.) that there is a small number of Sanskrit words in 
which, as in cankhd-s=Kéyyxo-s (No. 65), the hard aspirate of 
the Indic languages is found side by side with that of the 


logical method (cp. Lepsius ‘ Das allgemeine linguistische Alphabet,’ 
p. 27, and ‘Standard Alphabet,’ 2nd ed., London and Berlin, 1863 ; 
Briicke ‘Grundziige der Physiologie und Systematik der Sprach- 
laute,’ 2nd ed., Wien, 1876; Heyse ‘System der Sprachwissenchaft,’ 
p- 269). Still I retain the names ‘nasals, ‘liquids,’ ‘ spirants,’ 
which are very convenient in the study of language, as also the de- 
tonation of the organs of speech as ‘ guttural,’ ‘ dental,’ ‘ labial,’ and 
the distinction between ‘ tenues’ and ‘ mediae,’ in spite of the many 
manifest inconveniences of these expressions. 

1 Schleicher, in the ‘ Beitriige, i. 328-333, brings forward reasons 
well worthy of consideration for the assumption that the long ¢ and « 
were wanting as yet in the Indo-Germanic language. The question, 
however, seems to me not yet definitely settled. And indeed it is of 
no great importance for the etymology of single forms. 


82 


94 ~ VBOOK 


Greek. But it does not appear to me to be quite established 
that the aspirate was present in such words before the division 
of the languages. It is quite possible that in both languages 
the aspirate was developed independently out of the tenuis. It 
is true that one or two word-stems, in which a German and 
Latin k (c) is found side by side with an Indic kh, are very 
well explained according to Grassman’s view, e.g. khalatt-s 
(bald-headed), Germ. kahlképfig = Lat. cal-vu-s, AS. calo | Eng. 
callow]; but we can also understand them in their German 
form by supposing an occasional ‘stoppage of the shifting of 

83 sounds’ (Stocken der Lautverschiebung) which is not to be 
altogether rejected. In other cases there are other explana- 
tions possible, and the number of the words which belong to 
this class is altogether not large enough to enable us very 
easily to come to a definite decision. (Cp. Ascoli ‘ Lautlehre, 
p- 161.) Hence I regard it as an open question whether the 
original Indo-Germanic language possessed hard as well as soft 
aspirates. With regard to the liquids, Schleicher assumes only 
one, 7, and considers / in every case as a weakening of r. Still 
we shall see further on that, in spite of the frequent inter- 
change of the two sounds, in a considerable number of instances 
the Greck A is represented in the cognate languages by /, while, 
on the other hand, in a large number of words the 7 remains 
constant’. Therefore it appears to me more prudent to start 
from the assumption that there were always two sounds, but 
at the same time to recognize a very close relationship between 
the two and therefore an early tendency to the transition from 
7 to 7, though probably not from / to r. Lastly, we may with- 
out doubt assume the presence also of that weakest of all 
sounds, the spiritus lenis, in the earliest age of the Indo- 
Germanic language. (See above p. 43 n.) 

Now it has for some years been hotly discussed, whether 
the sounds here given, which almost all scholars admit to 
have existed in the period before the separation, are to be 
considered as the only ones then existing, or whether we 


1 Lottner ‘ Zeitschrift, vii. 18, was the first to show that the 
Juropean branches of the Indo-Germanic stem are in this respect dis- 
tinguished in many cases from the Asiatic. With this may be com- 
pared my remarks further on upon the division of the A-sound. 


INTRODUCTION. 95 


ought, so to speak, to admit to the citizenship in that early 
community other sounds as well. The more closely the 
phonetic side of the separate languages was investigated, the 
greater was the surprise excited by discovering, not only 
that the differences between the languages came out in a 
stronger light, but also that striking resemblances were to be 
found in the modification of what apparently was the common 
property of the whole stock —resemblances discerned in different 
periods and classes of languages far removed from each other 
in place and in time. Hence the question arose, Have not such 
resemblances some deeper foundation? Are we not wrong 
in attributing them merely to a similarity in the process of 
‘weathering away’? Pott had already frequently called atten- 
tion to certain difficulties in the views advocated by Schleicher. 
But it was the investigations of Ascoli, directed as they were 
to definite aims with marvellous learning and acuteness, that 
first led the discussion along new lines. To him belongs, as 
Germans have not sufficiently recognized, the honour of having 
laid the foundation, and of having given the first real impulse to 
nearly all the recent investigations into the consonantal system 
of the Indo-Germanic languages, and the conjectures and far- 
reaching combinations to which they have given rise. 

Ascoli has shown in his ‘ Corsi di Fonologia’ (1870, German 
translation 1872), that the Sanskrit &, out of which in certain 
eases a K is developed, and the palatal sibilant which we 
denote by ¢, while represented with a few noteworthy ex- 
ceptions in Greek, Italian, German, and Keltic by the same 
sounds (Gk. x, Lat. c), are nevertheless in Ivanian, as in the 
Slavo-Lithuanian languages, almost without exception two 
quite distinct sounds. The same chasm was found to exist 
between the same families of speech in the representation of 
the Sanskrit ¢ (from g=Gk. y, Lat. g) and gh and h (=Gk. 
x), though only in a portion of the words in which these 
sounds were contained. The Indo-Germanic languages can in 
consequence be divided into two groups, the non-assibilating 
and the assibilating (Sanskrit, Persian, Letto-Slavonic), and 
the theory, which I myself formerly advocated, that the 
palatal ¢ is to be regarded in its origin as completely identical 
with a /, and that there is no difference between the various 


96 BOOK I. 


kinds of ¢ and gh (A), must be given up. In the fourth edition 
of this book, on p. 29, I mentioned Ascoli’s investigations, 
but could not at that time go further into the question. 

The facts established by the Italian scholar gave rise to two 
conflicting theories in Germany. Johannes Schmidt employed 
them mainly as the foundation for an attack on the whole of 
the view previously taken of the divisions and classifications 
of the Indo-Germanic languages. In whole sets of words there 
corresponds to a Greek x, to a Latin and Keltic c, and to a 
Teutonic h, the k& (or its representative k) which was to have 
been expected in Sanskrit, Iranian, and Slavo-Lithuanian: 
e. 2. 

Gk. AdKo-s (No. 89), Skt. v¢ka-s, ChSl. wlth, Lith. vilka-s ; 

» kpéas (No. 74), Lat. caro, cruor, Skt. kravés, Ch8l. kriivt; 
while within as wide a range, e. g. in 

Gk. €é-xaré-y (No. 18), Lat. centu-m, Goth. hund, Olr. cet, 

OKymr. cant ; but Skt. catd-m, Zend cate-m, Lith. szimta-s, 

ChSl. sito, 
to the same sounds in the same languages there correspond 
in the other class sibilants—in Skt. and Zend ¢, and in Chsl. 
s. Bopp had used these relations which, as has been men- 
tioned, recur in a portion of the medials and aspirated medials, 
although he did not know how widely they extended, to 
85 establish, on the one hand, the universally admitted close 
. affinity between Sanskrit and Iranian, and, on the other, 
that between these two languages and the Slavo-Lithuanian, 
maintaining that all the assibilating languages had quitted 
the parent stock later than the non-assibilating, i.e. after the 
developement of these sibilants. Johannes Schmidt, however, 
did not confine himself to the grounds on which this view had 


already been attacked by others who had maintained the — 


existence of a close affinity between the Slavo-Lithuanians 
and the rest of the European members of the family. In his 
work ‘ Die Verwandtschaftsverhaltnisse der indogermanischen 
Sprache’ (Weimar, 1872) he arrived at a view of linguistic 
affinity radically different from all previous ones. If, he 
concluded, Slavo-Lithuanian shows affinity in some features 
with the Western languages and in others with the 
Asiatic, such instances of agreement are not to be ex- 


» Cheetos mas 


INTRODUCTION. 97 


plained, as everybody has hitherto assumed, as due to the 
relationship of the languages to the original parent stem. His 
theory is that a linguistic phenomenon appeared in some par- 
ticular region of the earth’s surface, and then spread from 
neighbour to neighbour in a particular direction, leaving some 
regions untouched in its progress. According to that it is quite 
possible that the same people may have received one peculiarity 
from its neighbour on the right, another from its neighbour 
on the left, without our being able to deduce from either pro- 
cess a closer connexion of race on one side or the other. 
Schmidt himself explains his theory by the metaphor of a 
wave, which, rising at some point in a surface of water, 
spreads outwards from that point in concentric circles. The 
comparison of a great linguistic region to a pond or lake has 
never seemed to me an apt one. We must not forget that 
languages live only in peoples, and hence, in seeking for ana- 
logies, we must bear in mind the actual conditions of the life 
of peoples. The migration of single words may fitly be com- 
pared to the exchange of commodities; indeed it happens 
pretty often that the name and the thing are taken over 
together. But the modification of the sounds of a language 
involves a far deeper change: it is a revolution of the 
language itself. Deformations of the sounds of a language 
might therefore be likened to epidemics which pass from one 
nation to another without reference to affinities of race. But 
that the disease germs may find root in the new soil the two 
nations must be in constant and close communication, and 
the existence of such communication ean hardly be established 
for prehistoric times. An apter analogy might be found in the 
diffusion of fashions of dress. Here conscious imitation is the 
real incentive to change. Many accurately noted instances of 
the diffusion of special peculiarities in the Teutonic languages 
may be traced to this cause, and these instances have happened 
in periods when the different stems understood each others 
languages, and when there existed a sense of national unity 
between the different stems. For example, the High-German 
pronunciation of st and sp has during the last fifty years 
penetrated much farther among the Low-Germans, and has 
infected Plattdeutsch itself. Are we entitled, however, to 
H 


98 BOOK I. 


assume for prehistoric times the working of such influences 
to which we see teachers, clergymen, the stage, army sub- 
alterns, clubs all contributing? On the other side, we have to 
set the fact that there are plenty of examples known of lan- 
guages and dialects subsisting in the immediate neighbourhood 
of each other, and yet presenting contrasts of the most marked 
and uncompromising character. What an almost incredible 
variety of dialects inscriptions prove to have been spoken 
within the narrow limits of the Peloponnesus! Attic, Boeotian, 
Megarian dialects, though close neighbours to each other, 
remained markedly distinct, while the migrating Arcadians 
passed on in Cyprus many of their peculiarities as an inherit- 
ance to distant generations of their descendants. It was only 
the written language and the superior culture of Athens that 
were able gradually to efface these contrasts. 

That it is impossible to conceive of language in general as 
separate from the people and its corporate life: that we can 
think neither of the spread of the Indo-Germans without 
migrations, nor of that of their languages without the detach- 
ment of individual stems from the parent stock, is a truth on 
which Leskien, in his work ‘Die Declination im Slawisch- 
Litauischen’ (Leipzig, 1876), p. viii. ff, has rightly insisted, 
and in so doing he has found much support. He also remarks 
on the great improbability that the peoples, with whose lan- 
guages we are concerned, should have lived as such, from time 
immemorial, side by side ‘in unbroken continuity ;’ and this is 
what Johannes Schmidt’s view requires us to assume. Leskien, 
however, considers it possible that at an immeasurably earlier 
period, while the Indo-Germans were still a small people 
within narrow local limits, there should have arisen among 
them stems and dialects which, from the circumstances of 
their position, may have exercised upon each other an influ- 
ence of the kind imagined by Johannes Schmidt, and subse- 
quently have taken with them the beginnings of these phonetic 
peculiarities to their separate abodes. But are we forced to 
regard linguistic phenomena like the one with which we are 
here principally concerned, i.e. the assibilation of the palatals, 
as necessarily of such extreme antiquity? 

The linguistic facts, which Schmidt made the starting-point 


INTRODUCTION. 99 


for his stimulating theories, very soon found a radically 
different explanation in Fick’s book ‘ Die sprachliche Einheit 
der Indo-Germanen Europa’s’ (Gottingen, 1873). Following 
Ascoli pretty closely—Ascoli had assumed the existence in 
early times of a k infected by a following 7-sound side by side 
with the pure k—but with greater decision and with some 87 
small modifications, Fick maintained that two kinds of k’s 
had existed from the very beginning. The one & which Fick 
writes thus, often remains unaltered in all languages, but often 
produced a neighbouring v, and so became the origin of the 
Latin qu, the Teutonic hv, the Greek 7. The other k-sound, 
written by Fick as k, never does the latter, but occurs in the 
one class of languages as a pure /# and its later substitutes 
(e.g. Teutonic /), in the other class as that same sibilant of 
many forms (Skt. ¢, Lith. sz, ChSl. s), which gave rise to this 
whole discussion. To me Fick appears to have made out his 
case, and I believe we may safely add to the list given above 
of the Indo-Germanic consonants a second k with a probably 
more palatal pronunciation, which, with Fick, I shall write k. 
On this point a large number of scholars are now agreed. I 
may refer the reader to Havet in the ‘ Mémoires de Linguis- 
tique, il. 261 ff, Max Miller ‘Chips, iv. 64, Windisch ‘Bei- 
trage, vill. 26 ff., and more particularly to Ascoli ‘Studj 
Critici,’ ii. 281. 

There still exists, however, variety of opinion on the point. 
Ascoli had, as we saw, assumed a double g (Skt. g) and gh 
(h) as well. This Fick will not admit, as he thinks the num- 
ber of cases not large enough to prove it. In this matter I side 
with Ascoli. The ¢ of the Skt. root marg (No. 150) changes in 


* While this edition has been going through the press the following 
publications on this subject have appeared: Friedrich Miiller ‘Die 
Gutturallaute der indogermanischen Sprachen’ Sitzungsb. d. philol. 
hist. Classe d. K. Akademie in Wien 1878, p. 3 ff. Hermann Moller 
‘Epenthese vor K-Lauten im Germanischen als Wirkung des velaren 
oder palatalen Charakters der Wurzelauslauts, Ztschr. xxiv. 427 ff. 
Collitz ‘Die Entstehung der indoiranischen Palatalreihe,’ Gott. 1879. 
Many of the questions concerned are discussed by Hiibschmann 
‘Tranische Studien,’ Ztschr. xxiv. 323 ff., and by Friedr. Kluge ‘ Beitr. 
z. Gesch. d. german. Conjugation,’ Strassb, 1879, p. 42 ff. 


H 2 


100 BOOK I. 


the participle mrshtd-s into a sibilant, while that of jug (No. 144) 
shows in juk-td-s the explosive. The same difference may be 
seen in the ChSl. mltiza (apéAyo) and the ChSl. igo (=jugu-m). 
In like manner to the Skt. hv closely corresponds the synony- 
mous ChSl. azt-kt, while laght-s readily finds a representative 
in ligt-kt. Here too Iranian ranges itself along with Slavo- 
Lithuanian. Hence we may assign to the primitive Indo- 
Germanic two g’s (g and g) and two gh’s (gh and gh). 
Hiibschmann has in ‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 40 ff., 384 ff, confirmed 
this theory by instances adduced from Iranian and Armenian. 
Hermann Moller, in his acute work ‘Die Palatalreihe im 
Germanischen, has attempted to demonstrate that even in 
the Teutonic languages, particularly Frisian and English, 
traces exist of the same duality, which in his view furnishes 
the explanation of the difference between the initials of the 
two words guest and yesterday. 

This is not the place for a fuller discussion of the main 
difference between Joh. Schmidt and Fick. The recent dis- 
cussions of the point have hardly brought any fresh facts to 
light. On the other hand, it has been implicitly recognized 
that the preference belongs to that view which reduces the 
action of ‘chance’ within the smallest limits. In this con- 

88 nexion I will venture to make a short remark. Those who 
follow Fick in assigning to the primitive Indo-Germanic 
tongue two sorts of & (k and &), analogous to the Koph and 
Kaph of the Semitic languages, limit the action of chance 
more than Schmidt and his followers. For the latter assume 
that the single k from which they start was from no assign- 
able cause—accidentally, that is—at an early period, and in a 
sharply defined set of words, attacked by an affection, which 
spread from its original home over a number of languages, 
while Fick finds nothing more surprising in the coexistence 
of k and & than in that of k and g. If, on the other hand, it - 
be objected to Fick that on his assumption it is also an 
accident that this second & (£) should have appeared in the 
form of a sibilant among such widely different peoples, this 
objection will not hold. For the palatal contains in itself 
the germ of the later assibilation. It is no more surprising 
that this germ should have developed into the same growth 


INTRODUCTION. 101 


on different soils, than the same phenomenon would be in the 
case of two apple-pips. Moreover, a cursory examination of 
Ascoli’s exhaustive book on phonology will furnish numerous 
parallels to this process, e.g. on p. 39 (German translation), 
where he shows how a Latin c before an a gives the same 
sound in Lothringian French, and Friaulian, yet there could 
be no question here of contagion due to neighbourhood. The 
only accidental, or rather unexplained circumstance in the 
case is this: how came it that this germ of the & remained 
altogether unfructified in some languages, so that within a 
large area k became identical with £? We have, however, the 
most unmistakeable instances to prove that the abandonment 
of phonetic differences once existing is not unknown in the 
history of language—as may be seen in the case of the mediae 
in Slavo-Lithuanian, and the confusion made between mediae 
and tenues by uneducated Mid-Germans. 

The whole examination of this question bears on Greek 
etymology only in so far that we have to pay careful atten- 
tion to the distinctions here referred to when we are com- 
paring words from assibilating languages. For this reason, 
and also because of the importance of these questions for the 
study of language in general, I thought they ought not to be 
passed over in silence. We shall have to recur to them later, 
when considering the sporadic changes of sound. 

Finally, now that we are upon the subject of the con- 
sonants of the primitive language, we may mention another 
homo novus. It is indebted for its recognition to the acute 
discernment of Osthoff, who in ‘Ztschr. xxii. 87 ff, con- 
jectured that the primitive language possessed not only the 
universally recognized s, which undoubtedly was a sharp, or 
‘surd’ letter, but a soft or sonant s as well, a letter now gener- 
ally denoted by z. He concludes this, e.g. rightly as I think, 
from the relation of the Gk. picdd-s (No. 323) to the Zd. 
mizdha, Goth. mizdé, ChSl. mizda. The o of the Greek word 
is naturally a sharp one, but as such is due to the influence of 
the @ which has taken the place of the dh. There are cer- 
tainly only a few words which this theory concerns. Similar 
questions in respect to the vowels will occupy our attention 
immediately. 


102 BOOK TI. 


The original list of sounds, i.e. the sounds which existed 
immediately before the division of the languages, has not 
been retained in its entirety by a single Indo-Germanic lan- 
guage. Among the changes which are to be observed in the 
single languages we shall do well to distinguish two classes. 
The one class of sound-change pervades the entire structure 
of a language, and distinctly gives it its phonetic character. 
We may call these regular or general changes. In the 
Teutonic languages since the time of Grimm the very appro- 
priate name of ‘shifting of sounds’ (Lautverschiebung) has 
come into use for a prominent example of changes of this 
sort. For the Greek language this name is just as appro- 
priate. As in Gothic the old gh, dh, bh is represented by g, 
d, b, so in Greek it is represented by kh, th, ph, i.e. x, 6, ¢. 
Nevertheless the name ‘shifting of sounds’ does not serve to 
denote all the essential or general changes of the sound- 
system. For, in addition to shifting, we meet also with a 
‘splitting,’ which is, properly speaking, nothing but a partial 
shifting, e.g. of the Skt & to kK, of an original a partly to e, 
partly to 0, and to this must be added in the third place the 
complete loss of single sounds. We regard then shifting, 
splitting (Spaltung), and loss of sounds as sub-divisions of 
this essential sound-change. But from this essential sound- 
change we must be careful to distinguish irregular or spo- 
radic, i.e. such a disturbance of the original relation as 
presents itself only in a more or less limited number of in- 
stances, so that the distinct phonetic character of a language 
is not determined by it. This is why all the dialects of a 
language share—although not in the same degree—the re- 
gular changes of sound, whereas in the sporadic changes the 
varieties of dialect are far more prominent. For example, 
all Greek dialects have ¢ in the place of an original bh; we 
can conceive of no Greek at all without the sound ¢; all 
dialects show the ‘splitting’ of the short as well as of the 

90 long a; but the appearance of a 7 in the place of an original 
k, as for instance in wes from the interrogative stem ka, is 
sporadic, and hence the new-Ionic dialect has still preserved 


* Ascoli uses for these changes the name ‘ tralignamento’ (Fono- 
logia, p. 26). 


a mee meres 


INTRODUCTION. 103 


the old & in xés. The distinction between these two main 
classes of sound-change seems to me to be of the greatest im- 
portance in etymology. Through trusting to a few examples of 
correspondence of sound the mistake has very often been made 
of regarding the interchange of two sounds as universally 
admissible. Thus, for example, on the strength of certain 
well-established instances, in which the Greek 7 corresponds 
to the old k, it has been asserted that for every k m may be 
expected in Greek, nay even (what is of course a still bolder 
inference) that for every p a x may sometimes be expected in 
Greek. Every rational scientific process depends simply on 
the rule being distinguished from the exception, and this is 
why we here insist upon a complete separation between the 
two classes of sound-change. In the second book of this 
treatise we shall have to examine the rule in its far-reaching 
influence, including the permanence of the Indo-Germanic 
sounds in the Greek language, and that regular change of 
them which has become a law. For this reason the arrange- 
ment of a lexicon has been chosen for that part. In the third 
book we treat of the exceptions and endeavour to throw some 
further light upon a series of unessential phonetic transitions 
and modifications. It is needless to say that we do not regard 
either the one or the other class of phonetic change as acci- 
dental, but rather start with the opinion that laws penetrate 
this phonetic side of the language, as they do the whole. 
But as the students of natural science are wont to distinguish 
between normal and abnormal phenomena, so also must the 
students of language. It will not always be possible to dis- 
cover the reason of the anomaly, but still, by comparison of 
kindred anomalies, we may discover even in these a certain 
order, and it is important to determine the extent of that 
order with statistical exactness. 

When we return then to the question, What is the relation 
of the Greek phonetic system to that of the original Indo- 
Germanic language? we find that of the vowels ¢ both short 
and long, of the consonants the first two orders of explosive 
sounds, and the nasals and the liquids, in all 13 out of 23 
sounds, have remained untouched. The above-mentioned finer 
distinctions between gutturals and palatals may be disregarded 


104 BOOK I. 


here, more particularly as Greek developes no special sound 
for them. On the other hand, of the vowels % has become v, 
am has become @, of the explosive sounds the aspirates have 
become tenues aspiratae. The two a-sounds have been ‘split’ 

91 into the three sounds a, e, 0, and of the spirants 7 has dis- 
appeared entirely, v to a great extent, and s, in the great 
majority of cases where it occurs before a vowel, either has — 
become changed into a simple breathing or has vanished 
altogether. If we compare with this the phonetic relations of 
the Italian languages, we meet directly with a point of agree- 
ment in the fact that no single primitive sound is changed in 
the Italian languages which remained untouched in the Greek, 
and that the difference between the two sorts of k, g, gh are 
equally absent in both cases. On the other hand, of the 10 
sounds which Greek has altered, the Italian languages have 
kept the long and the short w throughout, and the three spi- 
rants have as a general rule been retained. A regular trans- 
formation is seen then only in 5 sounds, i.e. in the three 
aspirates, which are completely ‘shifted, and in the two 
sounds of a which have been ‘split’ as in Greek. 

The doctrine of the division of the a-sounds has, like the 
above-discussed variety in the representation of the k sounds, 
passed through several different stages of theoretical explana- 
tion. It will be best to mention these in the historical order 
in which they gradually arose. 

The earliest view was that of the three vowels a, e, 0, as 
representatives of the Indian @ in general were completely 
equivalent to each other. It was even thought that the 
original a once existed in each of the separate languages, and 
might be assumed in any case as a starting-point. The first 
modification of this view was suggested by me in a paper read 
before the Hamburger Philologenversammlung in the year 
1855, in which I called attention to the extensive agreement 
manifested in this respect between Greek and Latin. I called 
e.g. lego, ego Graeco-Italic forms which, with their present vocal- 
isation, were already in use at the time when the Greeks and 
Italians, though forming one people, had already separated 
themselves from the rest of the Indo-Germanic stock. Similarly 
I held anemos to be a Graeco-Italic form, which, retained un- 


INTRODUCTION. 105 


touched by the Greeks, was long afterwards, within historic 
times, weakened by the Latins to animus. I subsequently 
made a closer inquiry into the extent of this agreement, the 
result of which I published in my paper ‘Die Spaltung des 
A-Lauts’ (Sitzungsber. der k. s. Ges. d. Wissensch. 1864, 
p. 9 ff.) The most important result was the establishment of 
the fact that the splitting of the a-sound is common to all the 
European members of our family of languages, as distinguished 
from the oriental ones. A similar agreement of the European 

- group was found in more cases than one. At p. 83 we ad- 
duced one such instance. Schleicher (‘Hildebrand’s Jahrb. f. 
Nationaldkonomie 1863, p. 498) and likewise Pictet in his 92 
‘Origines’ showed several important notions of civilization to 
be the common property of this group (ep. No. 490, No. 481). 
In numbers of word-stems we accordingly found the old a 
preserved in all these languages—e. ¢. 


Gk. dy, Lat. ago, ON. aka, No. 117 
» GAdAos, , aliu-s, Goth. ali-s, OL. aile, No. 524 
Wrarrt, , ante, » and, Lith. dnt, No. 204 


In a still longer list a is in the same languages attenuated 
to e or still more so to i—e.g. 


Gk. déxa, Lat.decem, OHG. zehan, ChSl. desett, OI.deich, No. 12 


5 €00S, , sedeo, Goth. sita, Lith. sédmi, No. 280 
» féooco-s,,, mediu-s, ,, midji-s, ChSl. mezdu, ,, meddn, No. 469 


In a much smaller one we find in all the dulling of a to o 
or further to u—e. g. 
Gk. Bod-s, Lat. bd-s, OHG. chuo, ChSl. gov-gdo, OI. bd, No. 644. 

In all these examples we recognized a closer relationship 
between Greek and Latin, but more especially in the fact that 
these two languages put the duller sound in the place of the 
old @ even in cases where this is not done in the northern 
languages—e. 2. 


“Gk. Lat. Olr. 
yi-yve-oK-w, gno-sc-o, OHG. knd-u, Chl. zna-ti, No. 185 
di-s, ovi-s, Goth. avi-str, Lith. avi-s, 02, No. 595 
OKTO, octo, » ahtau, , asztini, ocht, No. 96. 


This pointed to the fact that the appearance of an e-sound 
—possibly through the intermediate stage of d—by the side 


9 


co 


106 ROOK I. 


of the a-sound, was a phenomenon common to all the Euro- 
pean languages, and that the production of an o-sound was a 
process confined to Graeco-Italic. 

These conclusions were abundantly confirmed by Fick's 
excellent work ‘ Die ehemalige Spracheinheit der Indo-Germa- 
nen Europas?, in which NE same agreement between the 
European languages was traced and elucidated in cases of the 
most different kind. In consequence our common view won 
numerous adherents. Particularly the existence of a European 
e-sound was regarded as proved. Individual forms which as 
yet did not admit of a complete explanation could not avail to 
alter these conclusions, for the number of thoroughly estab- 
lished facts was an overwhelming one. 

A new impulse, however, was given to these discussions 
from a fresh quarter. Hiibschmann, in his essay ‘ Ueber die 
Stellung des Armenischen im Kreise der Indo-Germanischen 
Sprachen’ (‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 5 ff., to which a supplement followed 
at pp. 400 ff.), proved that the agreement above spoken of be- 
tween European, and in certain respects between the Greek and 
Italian languages, was shared to a very considerable extent 
by the hitherto little examined Armenian language. For in- 
stance, with dyw goes Armen. atsem, with dXos Armen. ail, 
with pécos and medius Armen. méj, with éyo Armen. ez, with 
6(w, odor Armen. hot, with Bof, bov Armen. kov, with Bporés 
(from pop-ro-s) Armen. mardo. It is hard to say that such 
parallels are accidental, and it must at all events be admitted 
that the wide extension of the e and the o, though strange 
to the Indians and Persians, still cannot any longer be re- 
garded as a specifically European peculiarity. 

In the end, our science arrived, in the natural course, at a 
fresh attempt: that, namely, of explaining the differences be- 
tween the three vowels as something which in its germ at 
least existed from the earliest times. After a few earlier 
conjectures had been made in this direction, Brugman (‘ Stud.’ 
ix. 369 ff.) took the bold step of trying in earnest to 
distinguish for the primitive Indo-Germanic language an a 


' [Cp. ‘Essays and Addresses’ (Owens College, Manchester, 1873), 
pp. 320-325. | 


INTRODUCTION. 107 


approaching to e which he calls a! and one approaching to o 
which he calls a*.. It is clear, however, that this assumption 
will not suffice. Where should we have to put the a which 
remains a, as e.g. in &yw? The adherents of this theory are 
consequently bound to carry out still further their system of 
numerical exponents. Of necessity too the same principle 
would have to be adopted for the diphthongs as well, and such 
formulae as alu, a?u &e., would hardly tend to the simplifica- 
tion of the science. Are we not in danger here of constructing 
for ourselves unnecessarily a labyrinth in which we should lose 
ourselves in the end? A serious stumbling-block in the way 
of these attempts lies in the monotony of the Indo-Persian 
group, which is so persistent in maintaining the simple a, 
while their alphabets show in other cases a greater readiness 
than other languages in expressing the most various phonetic 
modifications. The history of vowel developement, as observ- 
able within historically attested periods, e.g. in the Romance 
and Teutonic languages, shows hardly anywhere any appreci- 
able increase, but rather an extensive decrease, in the number of 
pure a-sounds. Are we to suppose that with the Indians and 
Persians the opposite tendency operated? In general, however, 
the changeableness displayed by vowels, even within the dia- 
lects of a language, is so great that in this matter it is pecu- 
harly difficult to distinguish what is really the oldest form. 
On no account can any sort of conclusion in this direction be 
regarded as established until the whole vocabulary of at least 
one language, Greek for example, has been examined with a 
view to this question and the applicability of the new theory 
circumstantially proved. Till then the facts that Greek and 94 
Latin in a special and the European languages in a less degree, 
agree in their vocalisation, remain as much as ever at the service 
of etymological investigation, and hence I leave unaltered the 
doctrine formerly expressed as to the division of the a-sound. 
Those fundamental laws of the Greek language which, like 
e.g. the expulsion of the sibilant between two vowels, the 
change of every final m to v, the very limited number of pos- 
sible final letters, are universally known and recognized, I 
shall here omit. Other phenomena of the kind will occupy 
our attention in the investigations in the third book. Where 


108 BOOK I. 


a doubt seemed possible a slight hint has been given in the 
notes to the separate etymologies. 


12. 


It is much harder to discover the fixed principles which 
underlie the change and transition of meanings. While the 
majority of the Indo-Germanic sounds have remained un- 
altered in Greek, and the remainder have undergone change 
according to simple laws, the number of roots and words 
which can be assumed to have completely retained their 
meaning from that primeval period is not large. Slight 
differences at least will as a general rule present themselves, 
and it will be difficult to reduce these to laws, or merely to 
illustrate them by analogies, even when we have to deal with 
the developement of meaning in a single language. “The 
words of a language,” says a reviewer of Grimm’s dictionary 
in the ‘Litterar. Centralblatt, 1852, p. 484, “do not in the 
developement of their meaning take a logical straightforward 
course; it is simply a delusion to suppose that we can thus 
make out the route of their journey now. He who should 
wish to stretch out the words of a language upon the frame- 
work of a logically evolved scheme, would torture them to 
death and scare away the spirit of fresh wanton daring life— 
their very soul itself.” A special linguistic science, Sema- 
siology or the science of signification, has more than once 
been laid down as necessary. Reisig assigned to it a place of 
its own in grammar between accidence and syntax. In his 
‘Vorlesungen uber lateinische Sprachwissenschaft,’ this part 
consists of nothing but scattered remarks, some of which do 
not belong to the province of grammar at all, but to rhetoric, 
and have little in common with what concerns us here. Apart 

95 from the meaning of inflexions, which is usually treated 
of in syntax, and from the meaning of the elements of word- 
formation which comes under the formation of nouns, the 
science of signification in the case of a single language would 
have the task of showing in what special way the meanings of 
words have been developed in that language. Evidently this 


INTRODUCTION. 109 


is a task of the highest interest, inasmuch as the special in- 
tellectual life of a people will be seen with peculiar clearness 
in the way in which they have turned to account what is 
most intellectual in their language. But just as we cannot 
estimate the course taken by the sounds of a language until 
the list of sounds which it possessed at its beginning is before 
us, SO we require for determining the course taken by the 
signification the firm basis supplied by the stem-words which 
were in existence before that course began, and neither the 
one nor the other can be obtained without a historical com- 
parison of languages. There is then hardly any other course 
open to us but to arrange, with all possible foresight, the 
materials in each single language as a preliminary step, and 
to leave to the future the construction of a science of signi- 
fication, partly of the Indo-Germanic language, partly of the 
single tongues specially. It is true that here too a still more 
general point of view is possible. As one or two widely ex- 
tended phzenomena of language have already been explained 
from a quite general point of view—such as e.g. the dual 
form by W. von Humboldt, the principle of the systems of 
numbers, and ‘ reduplication’ by Pott, and the phonetic pro- 
cess of what he calls zetacismus by Schleicher—it will also 
be possible to find for transitions of meaning general human 
laws and analogies, which will then be naturally of the 
greatest importance to philosophic etymology and for philo- 
- sophy in general. How interesting would it be, for example, 
if the generally received principle that the abstract proceeds 
from the concrete were to be tested by a multitude of ex- 
amples from the most different languages! These are, how- 
ever, distant views into the undoubtedly great and rich future 
of the science of language, in the elements of which we find 
as yet enough to occupy us. But why should we not, while 
conscious of our present elementary point of view, hold even 


1 Individual references and interesting collocations of the kind are 
given by Renan, ‘De lorigine du langage,’ pp. 125-130 of the 4th 
edition (Paris, 1864); on the relation between sound and meaning 1n 
general, he makes at p. 149 the following striking remark :—/da 
liaison du sens et du mot nest jamais nécessaire, jamais arbitraire, 
toujours elle est motive. 


110 BOOK I. 


such distant goals in sight? The comparative investigation 
of languages has hitherto done this too little; it has but too 
often lost itself in details, in which each in his way makes 

96 his experiments, often without the least attention to the un- 
dertakings of others. For the exploration of this profoundly 
dark province of the shifting of signification guiding points of 
view are indispensably necessary. 

In order to arrive at these we must be optimists enough to 
lay it down at starting that there is as a rule a limit even to 
these changes, that, although in the attempt to seize on the 
true meaning of a word-stem or a root we may often be in- 
clined to exclaim quo teneam voltus mutantem Protea nodo ? 
still in the end the Proteus is obliged to give an answer to 
the persistent hero. In spite of all change there is also to be 
seen in language a tendency to conservatism. All the people 
of our stock from the Ganges to the Atlantic use the sound- 
group sta to convey the idea of ‘standing ;’ to the sound-group 
plu with only immaterial changes they all attach the notion 
of ‘flowing. This cannot have happened by chance. It was 
no doubt because there existed between sound and sense an 
inward bond for the instinct of those nations, that the same 
idea remained bound for thousands of years to the same 
sounds; in other words, there existed a tendency to express 
this idea by means of just these sounds. A great deal of 
scorn has been poured upon the assertion that the oldest 
words presume the existence of some sort of relation be- 
tween the sounds and the ideas to be denoted by them. 
But it is hard to explain the origin of language without 
this assumption. At all events the idea dwells like a soul 
even in the words of quite advanced periods: “The con- 
ception,’ says W. v. Humboldt, ‘Introduction, p. 110, “is 
just as little able to separate itself from the word as the man 
can lay aside his features.” But what we have to do is to 
recognize this type of features in the many members of a 
family of words, and we must practise our eye in observing the 
changes which as necessarily pass over the features of words 
in old age as over those of old men. In this sense we may 
speak of a physiognomy of languages. No help is, however, 
to be obtained here from logical schemes, but all must depend 


INTRODUCTION. lll 


on certain just fundamental intuitions in the statement of 
which the science of language touches upon the ground of 
Psychology ?, and also on the nice discernment of analogies. 


13. 


A question which we must ask in these investigations is, 97 
How are we to conceive of the oldest vocabulary with respect 
to signification? Did language arise out of a limited number 
of simple ideas? In that case we should have to suppose such 
simple ideas in their natural ramification as in all cases our 
starting-points. Or was the childhood of a language richer 
than its later stages? Was it at that time master of a more 
copious store not so much of ideas as of concrete concep- 
tions—the birth of lively impressions? In that case we 
should have to be careful how we traced special meanings to 
general ones. The attempt to refer the motley variety of 
words back to certain simple primitive ideas has been fre- 
quently made. K. Ferd. Becker especially, in his treatise 
‘das Wort in seiner organischen Verwandlung’ (Frankf. 1833), 
lays down 12 cardinal ideas from which he thinks it possible 
to derive all other ideas and conceptions. But Pott—among 
other places in his ‘Rassen,’ p. 212 f., and ‘Et. Forsch.’ 11”. 
238—and Heyse (‘System, p. 1382) have rightly taken ex- 
ception to this view. Man forms ideas through abstraction 
and generalization from individual conceptions, which must 
necessarily be in existence before he can arrive at the idea 
(Begrif ), that is, as the name itself implies, at comprehension. 
Accordingly ideas, as e.g. that of going, presuppose concep- 
tions, e.g. of wandering, walking, striding, creeping, climbing, 
running, leaping, from which man, in that period in which 
reflecting thought began to awake, first grasped the simple 
idea that comprehends them all. In this respect the case is 
the same with nominal as with verbal ideas. Man could 


1 With this idea L. Tobler in the ‘ Ztschr. f. Volkerpsychologie u. 
Sprachwissenschaft’ i. 350 brings forward his ‘ Versuch eines Systems 
der Etymologie ;’ an essay rich in examples, to which we shall occa- 
sionally refer. 


TY BOOK I. 


name the several animals for thousands of years before he 
found an expression that denoted all animals generally. It 
was not till Plato’s time that Greek arrived at a word for 
animal as distinguished from man, and the word ¢@ov, which, 
like the Latin animal, includes all living beings, is—as Ed. 
Ott remarks in the ‘Programm’ of the Trieste Gymnasium for 
1857, p. 6—post-Homeric. If language had originated from 
those cardinal ideas we should be driven to expect for each 
of them one root only, and could at most hold it to be pos- 
sible that, as the meaning became individualized, stems had 
arisen from them which, though modified, were still to be 
93 recognized from their sounds as related to them. But the 
reverse is the case. For the first of Becker’s cardinal ideas, 
that of ‘going, there are to be found in the Indo-Germanic 
languages a large number of roots which have not the slightest 
phonetic connexion. The two which are the most widely 
extended were originally 2 and ga, Greek ¢ and Ba, both of 
which, though having undoubtedly the meaning ‘go,’ were even 
in Homer’s time so distinct, not in idea but with the differ- 
ence that is the result of linguistic instinct (Sprachgefihl), 
that they could be brought together in such formulas as Back 
i6., or BH tévar. I see not the faintest reason for regarding 
this difference as an after-growth. On the contrary, if there 
was any inherent necessity ruling the creation of language, it 
cannot be the result of chance that for an action, which, re- 
garded from the point of view of reflection forms a single 
idea, two different words should occur. From the difference 
of the words we may infer originally different conceptions 
which necessarily found their expression in different phonetic 
formations. The Indo-Germanic stock then denoted the 
different kinds of ‘going’ before they denoted the general idea. 
And we find the same process in all cases. The idea of 
‘seeing’ is to the linguistic consciousness of the Greeks—which 
is a subject which we shall soon have to consider—so far 
from being a single one that they actually make use of 
three originally distinct roots—a kind of chord of three notes 
—to express it. But there was no lack of other separate 
verbs, besides these, for the same idea, which denote again 
other modifications of the idea or rather other conceptions, 


INTRODUCTION, lle 


from which the general idea first arose by combination. Any 
one who is not wilfully blind learns from such patent facts 
that diversity is older than uniformity, and abandons the 
attempt at going to work with cardinal ideas; an attempt 
that in its way is as absurd with respect to signification as 
the attempts to refer the whole of the actually existing roots 
to a limited number of primitive forms is phonetically. And 
yet such assumptions are constantly being set before us even 
in good books. For example, in the fifth edition of Passow’s 
‘Lexicon, p. 2874, not only the Latin fundo but even dépa, 
Jfero, and gero are derived from the Greek gv, and Joh. 
Heinrr. Voss is quoted, who in an unlucky moment hit upon 
the idea that “the entire Greek, Old-Latin and German 
languages were derived from this common root.’ He who, 
instead of subjecting language, like a genuine pedagogue, to 
his own caprices, prefers to learn from it, will necessarily 
be brought to an entirely opposite view, such as has been 99 
stated with great clearness and consistency in the excellent 
work of Heyse. There we read (p. 130 f.), “If we consider 
the root as that which lies at the foundation of a whole 
family of words in common, its meaning must certainly appear 
more general, that is, more indefinite, than that of any single 
word formed from it; both in form and in substance, for 
form and substance cannot be absolutely separated, and by 
the limitation of the form the contents also become different. 
On the other hand, if we regard the root in its origin as the 
product of an intuition (Anschauung), created by sensuous 
perception, we must, on the contrary, consider it as the ex- 
pression of something entirely individual and particular. It 
is more general, more vague than any word developed out of 
it, and yet in respect of its original contents it is more in- 
dividual, more sensuously intuitive, more absolutely vivid.” 
And further on he says, “The procedure is as a rule from the 
unit of sensuous perception to the more or less general in- 
tuition and conception, and from this back to the particular?.” 


1 Max Miiller’s remark (‘ Lectures,’ ii. 352), that “the specializa- 
tion of general roots is more common than the generalization of special 
roots, though both processes must be admitted,” is opposed to our view 
more in appearance than in reality. For the question there rather 

I 


114 BOOK I. 


We might also say: the differences of synonymes are older 
and more original than the differences of the spheres of con- 
ception. We showed this before with regard to the concep- 
tions ‘go’ and ‘see;’ but we return once more to the latter, 
for it may be shown with especial clearness that the ideas of 
contemplating, espying, looking, regarding, watching, existed 
as distinct earlier than the general words which denote the 
various operations of the senses, those of seeing, hearing, and 
feeling. And words which, like the post-Homeric aicOdvec@at, 
sentire ‘to perceive, denote sensuous perception generally, 
belong to the latest developement. 
100 The Indo-Germanic root skav (No. 64), which occurs most 
plainly in the OHG. scawdn (schauen) ‘to contemplate, is pre- 
served in Greek in the form oxoF, cof, but it has not only in @vo- 
ok6-o-s the meaning ‘to contemplate, but also in xog (Hesych. 
adKovel, TEevOETAL; Cp. Kodaat, alcbéc Oar) that of ‘hearing, ‘ascer- 
taining. The limits of the two senses are overlept, but the 
particular fundamental meaning, by which ‘contemplation’ 
(Schauen) is distinguished from ‘looking’ (Blicken) or ‘spying’ 
(Spdhen) is preserved. It occurs in the Lat. cavere, cautus 
precisely as in the Goth. us-skav-s ‘cautious.’ The vagueness of 
the meaning of the root here lies in something very different 
from the idea; it lies in the fact that the conception of 
thoughtful contemplation is not yet applied to anything 
special. For certainly from this the notion of ‘cautious 
looking out, as in the German proverb ‘trau, schau, wem,’ may 


concerns the manifold employment of a root in words coined from it. 
“Thus from roots meaning ‘to shine,’ ” (he says, p. 353), “‘to be bright,’ 
names were formed for sun, moon, stars, the eye of man, gold, silver, 
play, joy, happiness, love.” I would only add, that it is not every 
root, which falls under the évoua of ‘to shine,’ which is adapted for 
all these uses: rather there is in the root something peculiar to itself, 
so to say a character indelebilis, which capacitates it preeminently for 
a certain specialization in the sense assigned to it.—Jacob Grimm (‘K]. 
Schrift.’ i. 124) calls words which do not allow their fundamental idea 
to appear ‘hard lava, and adds, “ All appellations are wont to over- 
flow faster or slower the banks of the conception which lie in them.” 
The opposite to this is found in the words to which Heinrich Schmidt 
(‘ Griech. Synonymik,’ i, 528) ascribes a sense ‘fresh as nature’ (natur- 


Frosch). 


INTRODUCTION. 115 


be developed just as well as that of joyful satisfied contempla- 
tion, from which, to say nothing of other comparisons, not 
quite free from doubt, the Goth. skaun-s (schén) ‘beautiful’ 
sprang. The fundamental idea is that of the eye dwelling on 
an object. The sensuous meaning may be faintly perceived 
in the Latin formula lege cautum est, for as this occurs in con- 
nexion not only with ne but also with wt, cautum est comes 
very near to the German es ist vorgesehen ‘it is provided.’ 
According to the analogy which the senses bear one to 
another, it was possible for this root to be transferred from 
the sense of sight, as we saw, to that of hearing, sooner than 
from the fundamental idea to another, as, for instance, that of 
looking or espying.—Just as old as the conception of ‘contem- 
plation’ (Schauen) is that of ‘espying’ (Spdhen). We Germans 
are fortunate enough to distinguish them directly by the instinet 
of our language, as the living sense of nations, it is true, has 
always done, though the ‘definition’ of the conceptions of the 
two verbs is not easy. But even an uneducated man can easily 
distinguish the ‘espying’ eye from the ‘contemplative.’ The root 
for this conception (No. 111) was originally spak, whence Skt. 
spaca-s, Gr. oxomé-s ‘spy, Lat. spec-ula ‘place of espial, OHG. 
spéh-6-m ‘I espy- In Sanskrit this root has lost its initial s 
in the present stem pac-ja. The meaning assigned is ‘see, 
desery, behold ;’ and it is significant that pacjami, at any rate 
in the later language, is only used in the present stem, like 
dpdé, but in the other tenses it is supplemented by darg, cor- 
responding to the Greek depx. The force of the Latin root spec 
in speculum, conspicio, adspicio has been generalized in like 
manner. For certainly the spirit of language allows itself to 
generalize conceptions, to “strip them of their physical ele- 
ment” as Heyse (‘System,’ p. 96) well calls it, while, on the other 
hand, it is by the irresistible force of usage that the name oxo 101 
‘espier’ is given only to one particular bird. From the same 
sensuous fundamental notion Greek arrived at the idea of the 
‘mark’ cxo7é-s and at that of ‘hesitating reflection’ oxémrecOat 
oxorreitaOa:. But in all these cases it is not difficult to recog- 
nize the fixed nucleus in the developement of the meanings.— 
A third synonyme for the idea of seeing was originally ak, in 
which form it has been preserved only in the Lithuanian verb 


Tee 


116 BOOK Tf. 


dk-ti and in the substantive ak-i-s ‘eye. Expanded by a 


sibilant the root appears in the Skt. dk-sh-i ‘eye.’ The Graeco- 


Italic form ok occurs in oc-ulu-s, and more disguised in dace 
for éx-t-e, which the Slav. ok-o very closely approaches, the 
Goth. aug-6 somewhat more distantly. By labialism 6x became 
6m in dws, dona, &e. The distinctive meaning of this root 
(cp. p. 463, No.627) has perhaps been preserved most clearly in 
the Lith. akti ‘to get open eyes. —In a fourth root which comes 
under the dvoua of ‘seeing, the root Fis, we may at least regard 
it as characteristic that in five families of language the idea 
of ‘knowing’ has developed out of it: of8a—Skt. veda, but also 
vedmi—Goth. vait—ChSl. véd-e-ti—Olv. ro-jitir (for rofid-tir) 
novit. In Sanskrit we also meet with the apparently related 
verb vi-n-d-d-mi ‘I find.’ Hence it may be conjectured that from 
the beginning the idea of the apprehending, discovering sight 
was attached to this root (cp. Grassmann, ‘ Wtb.’ p. 1270): and 
therefore Greek confined this root in its sensuous signification 
to the aorist. Indeed in some passages ‘deity cannot be translated 
better than by ‘find:’ e.g. Plat. ‘Sympos.’ 174 E yées (nrav ce 
iva Karéoaut, ovx olds 7 4 idetv.—For a fifth synonymous 
root, in its oldest form appearing as dark (No. 13), Skt. 
daddrc-a=Gr. d€-dopx-a, as it is connected with the idea of 
brightness (AS. torh-t ‘splendens),’ and served to supply aname 
for the dragon épéx-wy and for the gazelle dopx-ads, we may per- 
haps assume the idea of a clear, bright flashing look as the proper 
or especial meaning (cp. Sonne, ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 351 ff.).—The case 
is quite otherwise with dpd-w, with which ep. ovpos ‘ watch- 
man. As the forms édpwr, ¢e@paxa point to an initial digamma, 
the root Fop (No. 501) may be compared with the OHG. war-a 
‘cura, war-t‘custos’ and the substantive war in the usage found 
even in MHG. ‘war nemen eines dinges’ (to take heed [be ware] 
of a thing); and with these we have to place also pa ‘ care, 
heed.’ Perhaps Lat. ver-c-o-r is derived from this same root: 
its proper meaning would then be ‘I am ware of. However 
this may be, we assign to the root fop the fundamental notion 
of ‘wary, anxious sight.—Besides these six verbs of seeing we 
have still a number of others which for the most part bear the 
marks of great antiquity, as, for instance—to confine ourselves 
to Greek—)ctoow (No. 87), Bra, Oedopar (No. 308). But 


INTRODUCTION. TLE 


the same plurality may be proved in the case of many other 
ideas. We have only to think of the numerous roots which 
mean ‘say, of the manifold verbs of ‘shining’ and ‘gleaming.’ 
In this multiplicity of concrete and quite peculiar conceptions, 
all of which carry in themselves the power of being generalized 
and of becoming as it were signs of the idea, lies the main 
reason which explains the voAvavvyia, and at the same time 
also the plurality of languages and the deviations of even 
nearly related languages from each other. To grasp these 
relations a special sense is requisite, which is nurtured rather 
by a genuine scholarly devotion to single languages than by 
widely extended investigations into the structure of language 
generally, though this must be sharpened and guarded from 
errors by analogies drawn from wider circles. Here we need 
the instinct for language, the instinctive perception of the 
poetry slumbering in language—such as no one showed more 
than Jacob Grimm,—and, on the other hand, the careful atten- 
tion to out-of-the-way formations and significant differences 
of usage. But as all inquiries of the kind go back to the 
earliest periods of the life of language, it is quite impos- 
sible to limit oneself to a single language in conducting 
them, and here we may clearly see how detailed and compre- 
hensive investigation mutually help on and consolidate each 
other |. 

We now set ourselves the task—not indeed of explaining 
the meanings of words from the mechanical aggregation of 
small inexpressive elements—but rather, so far as possible, 
of referring them to a physical conception as special as pos- 
sible, which is the ruling idea and as it were the soul of the 
word, and we adopt the long-approved principle that abstract 
words have proceeded from conerete ones. But we must not 
neglect to use the greatest caution in the application of 
this principle. For it is well established that there are . 
among the roots of the Indo-Germanic languages some, which 


1 Compare the excellent remarks of Steinthal (‘Philologie, Ge- 
schichte und Psychologie,’ p. 45) directed against the severance of 
Philology and the Science of Language, which in such questions as 
those discussed above is most decisively shown to be impossible. 
Similarly in his ‘Abriss der Sprachwissenschaft,’ 1. p. 40 f, 


118 BOOK I. 


—whether from the first or not we need not consider at 
present —at any rate before the separation of languages 
denoted strictly mental activities. As such we may regard 
the roots man (No. 429), smar (No. 466), gna (No. 185). In- 
deed in these we can discover, so to say, a retrograde tendency. 
103 Starting with what may be clearly recognized as a meta- 
physical application they are employed to denote ideas, which 
lie rather in the region of the senses. The Indo-Germanic 
root man, which in Sanskrit means ‘think, and which ex- 
presses mental activities in the substantives mdn-as ‘animus, 
ma-t-is ‘opinion, in the Gr. pé-pov-a, pév-os, in the Lat. me- 
min-t, men-s, mon-eo, in the Goth. ga-mun-an ‘think of, in 
the Lith. men-w ‘I think,’ cannot however be separated either 
from the more physical paivopua, pnvi-s (Skt. manju-s ‘sense, 
spirit, ill-humour’) nor from péve, maneo, Zend upa-man, fra- 
man ‘to remain, wait ;’ and it appears certain that language 
derived the idea of remaining and persisting first from that of 
reflective hesitant thinking and bethinking, as the opposite of 
hasty action. According to this precedent I also connect the 
Lat. mora with the root occurring in me-mor, which appears in 
Greek as ep and has preserved-its form in pép-i-yva, mép-pnp-a, 
but most completely in the Skt. smar ‘to bethink,’ smr-ti-s, 
smar-a-na-m ‘memoria. The Latin language, it is true, cer- 
tainly was not conscious that mora had any connexion with 
memor, and so entirely generalized the usage of this substantive, 
and that of the derived verb morari (in a manner, as it appears, 
especially common in Latin), that, without the analogy we have 
quoted, we should hardly think of assuming a connexion be- 
tween these words, a connexion confirmed by Olr. mar-ait 
(manent), n¢-mazir (he is not living). Perhaps, however, the same 
root experienced a similar change of meaning in Greek also, if 
we may connect “éAA@ with the root pep. In any case we find 
here the ideas of thinking of and hesitating side by side with 
each other. Hence, if there was a shifting of the meaning from 
the metaphysical back to the physical, the derivation of the 
Skt. mant-s or mdnu-s ‘human being, beside Goth. manna 
‘man, human being,’ and ChSl. m@- ‘man, from the root of 
‘thinking’ has nothing absurd init. Further, I cannot persuade 
myself to believe, as Fick (ii3. p. 184) maintains, that the Lat. 


INTRODUCTION. 119 


mas 18 wholly unconnected with this very ancient name for the 
human being, and especially the man. 


14. 


To discover the fundamental idea in a family of words it is of 
great importance to examine it, where possible, in a verb. For 
though we are not to go back to the old erroneous view that 104 
roots are verbs, and that the verb was older than the noun, 
the idea of a root unmistakeably unfolds itself most freely and 
broadly in verbal expression. It is here to a certain extent 
still in a state of flux, and here it reveals to us soonest on a 
closer examination its essential nature. As a rule only one 
side of this idea is expressed.* a noun, in a verb several. 
There is an advantage for the etymologist even in the fact 
that a root which is living as a verb always presents itself to 
us in a different light in the various tenses. For undoubtedly 
the difference between incipient+, continuous, and complete 
action—which I think I have justly distinguished in my 
school Greek Grammar § 484 (cp. my ‘Elucidations’ of it 
p- 180 (ed. 3)) from the difference between the orders of 
time (Zeitstufen), has the closest connexion with the funda- 
mental idea of a verb, and stands generally on that limit 
between the substance and the form of language, between in- 
flexion and word-formation, which, though for the require- 
ments of elementary teaching we treat it as firmly established, 
yet in deeper investigations we may consider as not uncon- 
ditionally fixed. That this difference is an original one, to be 
assumed as existing even in the earliest period of the Indo- 
Germanic language, although hardly a trace of it is to be 
found in Sanskrit, can hardly be doubted, when we consider 
that the whole conjugation of the verb, and especially of the 
Indian verb, rests upon the distinction between the verbal stem 


1 {“The epithet is difficult of translation, and cannot be represented 
in all its bearings by any single English word. It is ‘initial’ as 
opposed to ‘continued, ‘culminating’ as opposed to ‘preparatory,’ 
‘instantaneous’ as opposed to ‘durative.’” ‘Elucidations,’ p. 205 


(E. T.)}. 


105 


120 BOOK I. 


and the present stem. With Steinthal (-Philologie, &e. p. 46) 
I recognize the principle “the sound is always the secondary 
factor, the primary factor is the inner mental activity,’ and 
it seems to me inconceiveable that the relation which comes 
out so clearly in Greek and in the Slavonic languages, accord- 
ing to which an action viewed as momentary is connected with 
the shorter stem-form, one viewed as continuous with the 
extended form, should rest upon pure accident, and that such 
a distinction only arose after the separation of languages. 
Pott has recently again expressed himself to the same effect 
(ii?. 668 ff.), and adduces, as a proof of the fact, that the finer 
distinctions of duration themselves are by no means a product 
of the reflection of the understanding or of mental cultivation, 
but rather belong peculiarly to the instinct of language, some 
remarkable analogies from the dialects of India. With mea- 
sure, moderation, limitation the Indians in no sense concerned 
themselves. Their earliest poetry reveals to us an ideal cha- 
racter, averse to reality, and what wonder is it if they early 
lost the sense for distinctions which had little importance for 
them? Delbrick, in his ‘Altindische Tempuslehre’ (Halle, 
1876), shows that the language of the Vedas makes many fine 
distinctions between the aorist, the imperfect, and the perfect 
of the indicative, which were afterwards lost. 

But inasmuch as certain roots, by virtue of their fundamental 
idea, were adapted especially or exclusively to denote con- 
tinuous, or, on the other hand, only incipient action, we find 
some roots only in the present stem, others only in the aorist, 
and for this very reason, as we have seen, language was com- 
pelled sometimes to unite various defective roots and stems, 
in order to arrive at a complete verb, bound together by one 
conception!, as 6p@v—eldov—dpopai, Pépo—iveykov—oica, sum 
—fut, eiui—epvv or éyevounv—médguka or yéyova, Aéyo—elrrov 


1 Cp. the discussion of this anomaly by L. Tobler (‘ Ztschr.’ ix, 
251 ff.), who falls in with my view.—The tendency to characterize 
the present stem by methods peculiar to it, was preserved in Greek 
down to historic times. Thus Atticism limits the use of the root cxer 
to the aorist, perfect, and future, and uses in the place of it the de- 
rived oxor@ in the present and imperfect. Kontos, in the Aéyios 
‘Eppns A, 566. 


INTRODUCTION. Led 


—épd. It is just this primitive wealth of the Greek language 
which often furnishes us in this respect with the most import- 
ant conclusions. For, apart from such mixed verbs, it is 
undoubtedly not a matter of indifference to which class a verb 
belongs, whether the present, if it has a lengthened stem, is 
lengthened by nasal or vowel affixes, or it may be by redupli- 
cation, or by the inchoative characteristic cx. On the contrary, 
all this throws light upon the meaning of the root, and facili- 
tates the difficult task of ascertaining its fundamental idea, 
especially if we also pay attention to the employment of the 
individual forms in living use, particularly in the oldest period. 
For instance, to a root which like the Greek kau, means when 
regarded as momentary, ‘to make ready, manufacture’ (A 187 
Tiv xadknes Kdpmov dvdpes) and in the middle voice (2 341 
TaS avTol KapouecOa) ‘to acquire, we cannot possibly at- 
tach as its fundamental idea that of torpidity or exhaustion, 
because of the idea of growing weary peculiar to the durative 
képve: though this would have to be the case if, with Benfey 
ii. 150, we wished to connect kau with Skt. cam ‘sedari,’ ‘cessare.’ 
For the aoristic form of ‘make ready, manufacture, could not 
be developed from any such fundamental idea!. Even the 
distinction of the so-called genera verbi is instructive for the 
determination of meaning. Our judgement as to the funda- 106 
mental idea of a verb will vary according as it occurs only in 
the active, or only in the middle, or in both forms, and accord- 
ing to the meaning which it has developed in the latter. For 
instance, the fact that both avddvew and Adonai originate in the 
root «6 (pr. svad), by no means favours the derivation of suad | 
from sw ad ‘gut essen,’ or su & ad ‘gut anessen’ rejected above 
on other grounds. Again, as the idea of a verb is brought 
out, as it were, in various lights by the richness of inflexion, 
so it is presented in various aspects and situations, so to speak, 
by the composition of the verb with prepositions. By this 
means we frequently get additional elucidation. The funda- 
mental meaning is completely ascertained only by surveying 
all the instances of its composition with prepositions—though 
1 It is a significant fact for the meaning of kdpvew, that the word 


in modern Greek means do: pa) Kdyys dé, in Cyprus, is ‘don’t do that.’ 
Cp. E. Curtius, ‘Gott. Anz. 1857,’ p. 301. 


122 BOOK I. 


it is not always easy to effect this, owing to the arrangement 
of our lexicons. It is certainly not unimportant with regard 
to the correct conception of the Lat. root tul that, while in 
other respects it follows the meaning of the synonymous fer, 
it does not share its intransitive use, which occurs in differre 
= diagépev, while distult, as I have shown in my Prooemium 
de Aoristi latini reliquiis (‘Ind. lect. Kil. hib. 1822’) p. vi 
(reprinted in ‘Studien,’ vol. v. p. 436), is not found in the 
sense of diversus fut. The root ey (€ye) (Nos. 169, 170) has 
been considered quite identical with the Skt. vah (vadh-d-mt 
‘veho’) and the Lat. veh (veho). But, in addition to the use of 
the middle €youai rivos ‘I hold on to a thing, which of itself 
would make us hesitate, compounds like cvy-éy@ ‘I hold to- 
gether’ are not less opposed to such a view. The meaning of 
the Skt. root pat ‘fly, throw oneself down, fall’ (No. 214) does 
not seem to be very close to that of the Lat. petere, which is 
much less definite. But compounds like wt-pat ‘spring up, go 
up, pra-pat ‘hasten before, hasten to’ show that the funda- 
mental idea was that of motion through the air generally, 
and this indefiniteness remained with the Romans. Finally, 
in the case of a verb we have also to consider carefully its 
construction, in which sometimes a trace of the original idea 
betrays itself. This forms part of the border-land between 
etymology and syntax. The latter has often been led into 
error by endeavouring to derive the construction of a verb 
from the meaning most common to it in a later stage of the 
language, while the reason of it lay in the original idea, which 
has perhaps almost wholly faded away in the current usage. 
Thus the genitive, with which dpy, dpxouar are construed, 
must be taken into consideration in inquiring as to the mean- 

107 ing of the root apy (No. 165) and it is significant as regards 
the difference of the radically identical verbs @:yydve.w and 
jingere (No. 145) that the former is almost always followed by 
the genitive, the latter by the accusative. 

Nouns, as compared with verbs, show a certain inflexibility. 
They do not offer by any means so many advantages for the 
discovery of the primitive sense which language attached to 
them. But still sometimes the derivation of nouns gives us 
the same kind of help as the inflexion of verbs. For in the 


INTRODUCTION. 123 


case of derivation also, it is not always the full and undivided 
fundamental idea which meets us in single derived words, but 
often a fragment of it, a modified meaning. The fundamental 
idea, so to say, breaks up in the derivatives, and each one of 
these elucidates the whole, just as the fragments of a rock give 
indications of its quality. Hence it is of the greatest import- 
ance for etymology to collect as completely as possible all the 
words that belong to each other, and in the case of every word 
that is to be discussed we shall have to adduce at least the 
most important representatives from among its derivatives. 
Even formations of a date so (proportionally) late as diminu- 
tives sometimes throw much light upon the stem-word, e.g. 
vexillu-m for vélu-m. Conversely an etymology is often re- 
-futed by the fact that some member of the family, which can 
hardly be separated from the word explained, refuses to co- 
incide in its peculiar application with the idea assumed as 
fundamental. Thus Ebel (‘Ztschr.’ iv. 206) connects the Lat. 
vincere with the Gr. efke.v, as its causative. There is no diffi- 
culty presented by their phonetic relations, and, as far as the 
meaning is concerned, the words might well be brought into 
connexion. But we cannot separate per-vic-ax from vincere, 
and this word cannot be referred to the idea of yielding (cp. 
Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 61). Fick is more correct (ii°. 240) in comparing 
vinco with vikn, which he traces back to Fvix-n, and the Lith. 
veik-ti ‘force. We must regard as the first requisite for 
arriving at the fundamental idea (cp. Pott, 117. 283) the most 
comprehensive examination of all usages. Even etymologists 
of repute have often sinned against this principle. Meanings 
are often treated far too lightly. They are drawn from lists 
of roots and lexicons, instead of from the living language, or else 
they are constructed artificially out of inadequate materials. 
Inasmuch as comparative philology has to do with many lan- 
guages, there is of course often great difficulty in discovering 
the precise meaning of a word, for it is impossible to be 
equally at home in all, and certainly it is mainly in this direc- 
tion that our labours will need to be corrected in the future. 
But we must at least be aware of the dangers which threaten 
us at every step. We may therefore give here some instances 
of incorrect procedure. In the ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 238 o7réos ‘cavern’ 


124, BOOK [. 


is derived from odo, and the substantive is translated by 
‘cleft, tear, the verb by ‘cleave, tear. But in reality ord 
has only the meaning ‘draw, drag, pull,’ never of ‘dividing’ or 
of ‘tearing in pieces;’ and this alone would suit the etymology 
proposed. Occasion for error has been given by the fact that 
omav may sometimes be translated by ‘tear’ (reissen) in the 
sense of ‘drag to oneself’ or ‘tear forth. From the root an, 
which as a verb in Sanskrit means only ‘breathe, blow’ (ef. 
dveno-s, antma)it certainly appears that Skt. anala-s ‘fire’ is de- 
rived; and we may perhaps be right in supposing that the notion 
of ‘flickering’ (cf. rvoin ‘Hpaicroio P 355) serves as a link 
between the ideas of ‘ breathing’ and ‘ burning.’ (Cf. ‘Studien, 
iv. p. 228). But this by no means justifies us in ascribing to 
the root itself the meaning ‘burn, and further the more remote 
idea of ‘shine.’ With the same justice, on the ground of ¢apos, 
which probably belongs to the root dep (No. 411), we might 
attribute to this root the by-meaning ‘clothe,’ and even, as 
poép=fur is also derived from it, the further notion of ‘steal.’ 
Nouns are always to a certain extent names, which are given 
from some motive or other, drawn from the object and often 
fixed upon with bold caprice. We cannot distinguish sharply 
enough between such isolated offshoots of a root, and the main 
stem, or, to drop metaphor, between the fundamental idea 
which is visible throughout and isolated applications and 
bolder metonymies. The danger of embracing a cloud instead 
of Hera is one to which the etymologist is always exposed. 
And in this respect the Indian lists of roots are misleading. If 
we reflect how hard it is to give the idea of a word, especially 
of a verb, with brevity, we shall not imagine that we have, in 
the meanings assigned by grammarians to their roots, anything 
but approximate estimates. Let any one take any verbs he 
pleases in our High German literary language, as e. g. heben 
(heave), schépfen (draw), ahnen (guess), helfen (help), and en- 
deavour to explain them merely by two or three other words, 
without the help of another language, and without complete 
definitions, and it will be seen how impossible it is in this way 
to hit the central point of the meaning. He could hardly do 
more than set by the side of them some similar words such as 
tragen (bear), nehmen (take), vermuthen (conjecture), untersttitzen 


INTRODUCTION. 125 


(support). Now this is just what the compilers of the Indian 
lists of roots did. They only state that one verb is synonymous 
with another, or that it is a word for the general idea (néman= 
évopa) ‘go, ‘wish, ‘sound, &c. Hence Pott especially has justly 
warned us (e.g. ii”. 460) against too hasty a use of these in- 
dices ; and so also Westergaard (‘Radices linguae Sanscritae, 
p- x1) has uttered the words—which well deserve to be laid to 
heart :—“caeterum puto cavendum esse, ne illa grammaticorum 
de potestate radicum decreta nimis urgeantur, nam illis nihil 
vagius nihil magis dubium et ambiguum esse potest.’ These 
lists—to which an additional confusing element is added by 
the Latin translations of their editors—hardly give us more 
information than would be gained in the case of Latin verbs 
if they were divided into verba declarandi, sentiendi, eundi, 
splendendi, &c. We can never arrive at the real meaning of 
a root, except from its usage, and hence nothing can be done 
with unauthenticated roots, even if many of them do not rest 
upon arbitrary assumption. A scholar who aims at exactness, 
not merely in reference to the sounds, but also to the more 
metaphysical element of language, will have to guard himself 
carefully in etymologizing against the duevnva kdépynva of the 
lists of roots. 

It is a further departure from the region of the compre- 
hensible and intelligible, when such shadowy forms are 
created only by abstraction. This is an error, into which 
Leo Meyer falls. This scholar himself declares, it is true 
(‘Vergl. Gramm.’ i. 336), that he has taken the trouble to 
extract only “roots in a less rigorous sense,’ that is, “ those 
simplest elements, which it has been found possible hitherto 
to separate from words actually occurring after stripping off 
parts which belong to a suffix or a prefix:’’ but he does not 
always follows his own rule. It might be difficult to prove 
that in Lat. saxu-m the syllable sax (p. 399), in dAn =silva 
the syllable sul, in vijco-s the syllable nas had no sufhix 
still attached to them. But, apart from this, it is quite 
impossible to see what use is to be made of groups of 
sounds arrived at in such a purely arbitrary manner. The 
author himself feels the shadowy nature of these forms, for 
he does not venture to attach any meaning whatever to many 


109 


126 BOOK TI. 


of them. Pott gives, as a jocose example of such procedure, 
the root gen ‘to be a cheek’ for gena (ii?. 929). But there is 
hardly more sense in assuming for the benefit of the Lat. 
facere (p. 859) a root bhak ‘make, for dyamdv (p. 399) a 
root gap ‘love. We may assert confidently that the root of 
sci-o is sci, but what is gained thereby, if we here lay down 
the abstract idea as the only one? But inasmuch as sci-se-o, 

110 plebi-sci-tu-m, populi-sci-tu-m also belong to this root, and as 
in de-sci-sco we see the notion of separation coming out pro- 
minently, it becomes clear that sci-o is identical with kei-o 
(for oxet-w) ‘cleave’ (No. 45b), and that the meaning ‘sever’ 
(scheiden) branched off into ‘decide’ (entscheiden) and ‘dis- 
tinguish ’ (unter-scheiden). From the last it is a short step to 
‘know;’ and indeed in German we use the word gescheit 
(discreet) in a similar sense (cp. Doderlein ‘Synon. und 
Etym.’ vi. 823): while the Lat. cernere offers another parallel 
instance. The etymon is therefore in this case only found, 
when, to the form which may be proved to be the most 
primitive, we attach that meaning which the living usage 
of the whole group of connected words has shown to be the 
oldest. 

It is self-evident that we may on the whole expect to find 
both the fundamental meaning and the primitive form of a 
word first in the oldest language, and that accordingly we 
have to pay especial attention to the usage in the earliest 
period of language: and it is hardly necesary to point out the 
great importance of Homer’s diction for Greek etymology. 
Yet many etymologists in ancient and modern times have 
paid too little regard to the Homeric usage. The old ety- 
mology of pépiuva ‘care’ from pepifew ‘divide, “because care 
distracts the heart,” lingered on down to very recent times. 
This explanation would have little probability in _ itself, 
because it would ascribe to language the propounding of 
a riddle, but it is completely disproved by the considera- 
tion, that in Homer the words pépos and pepifey do not 
occur at all, and the related popos, poipa, eiuaprar only justify 
us in attaching to the root wep the meaning ‘apportion to, 
and by no means the materially different meaning of ‘part 
asunder’ (Homer’s dale, daigew). Hence pépipva like pép- 


INTRODUCTION. Pee. 


Hnpa belongs to the root wep from smar (No. 466); from 
which on p. 103 we explained me-mor and mora. The same 
consideration disproves the explanation of pépow as ‘dividing 
the voice, speaking articulately, which is now attacked on all 
sides, and which is in itself improbable enough: it is main- 
tained, however, by Déderlein (‘ Gloss.’ 2479). Christ (‘Gr. 
Lautlehre, p. 186) derives dpéém from the Skt. pra-vad ‘to 
say before or to say out. But even Aristarchus taught 
(‘ Lehrs,’ p. 93) that the verb in Homer still meant, not ‘ say,’ 
but ‘show’ Siacnpatvew, whence in the middle, e.g. od 6&8 
ppdoat ei pe cadoeis (A 83) comes the force ‘to show one- 
s lf, ‘to make clear to oneself, ‘to consider. This is alone 
enough to wreck Christ’s theory. It will be readily under- 
stood that, on the other hand, the later language also can in 
its turn often supply its own peculiar explanations, in par- 
ticular cases, especially in popular and proverbial uses. Even 
Modern Greek is not to be despised occasionally. Now-a-days 111 
kat; 6s means ‘weather, ypdvos ‘year.’ In both words the 
essential idea remained unaltered: in xacpés this is mutability, 
in yporos it is duration. We shall be obliged to presuppose 
this essential notion in the etymon. Fortunately the rich 
history of the Greek language furnishes us with such facts in 
abundance!, and we are very rarely so situated as to be 
obliged to learn the meaning of any Greek words merely from 
lexicons and other isolated explanations which might readily 
lead us astray. Accordingly, where we are thrown back upon 
such notices, e.g. those of Heschyius, we ought never to 
forget on what slippery ground we are moving. But it will 
be permissible to make a cautious use of glosses when their 
transmission does not in itself lie open to any suspicion. 
This is certainly less venturesome than to refer rare words 


1 There is a peculiar feature in the developement of the meaning of 
words, called the ‘pessimistic’ (cp. Bechstein ‘Germania,’ vii. 330), 
which occurs occasionally also in Greek, e. g. in movnpds, Opdoos. Max 
Miiller (ii. 249) notices similar instances. But undoubtedly the 
motive to this pessimism is often the endeavour to give mild names 
to bad things, i.e. euphemism. Cf. Lobeck de antiphrasi et euphe- 
mismo, ‘Acta Societ. Graec.’ 11. 291. 


ligt 


bo 


128 BOOK TI. 


of the kind by doubtful conjectures to the standard of more 
familiar Greek. 


15. 


Apart from the assistance in the discovery of the meanings 
of words, given by the means already indicated, we are ex- 
clusively confined to analogy, a great, but unquestionably not 
always trustworthy teacher. In linguistic investigations 
analogy has of course demonstrative force only when it is 
supported by a series of evident instances’. This is frequently 
the case with regard to the substitution of sounds. But in — 
the region with which we are at present concerned it is diffi- 
cult to form a series of any length, because the particular 
cases are too individual, so that we shall not often find that 
precisely the same conception is formed more than twice from 
one and the same original conception. But even a single sure 
example can throw surprising light on a similar case. Hence 
what is especially needed is a careful collection of such 
analogies: and up to the present time we feel a painful want 
of this*. Hitherto at most one side of the developement of 
meanings has been regarded, though this is certainly one of 
the most important, the figurative nature of expression, which 
runs through all languages. No one can fail to see that 
language is crowded in every part with metaphors, which 
shed a poetic fragrance over the simplest forms of speech. On 
this point much material has been collected. We have 
already referred (p. 95) to Renan—De Vorigine du langage. 
Pott (‘Ztschr.’ 11. 101) shows how man transfers his own cir- 
cumstances, relations, and properties to inanimate nature’. 


1 «A series of analogies strengthens conviction as much as the 
lengthening of the lever strengthens the moving power.” Welcker, 
‘Griech. Gotterlehre,’ p. 116. 

2 A collection of the kind here desiderated has been undertaken by 
Seb. Zehetmayr in his Analogisch-vergleichendes Worterbuch tiber das 
gesammtgebiet der Indo-Germanischen Sprachen, Leipz. 1879. 

* Louis Morel, in his Leipzig doctoral dissertation, ‘de vocabulis 
partium corporis metaphorice dictis’ (Geneva, 1875), illustrates the 
metaphorical usage of the words denoting parts of the body by 


INTRODUCTION. 129 


Indeed grammatical gender is nothing but an attempt of the 
same kind to assimilate the world of things to the nature of 
man. Even the ancients did not fail to observe that language 
itself here paved the way, so to speak, for the poet and the 
orator. Quint. viii. 6. 4 says that translatio is ita ab ipsa 
nobis concessa natura, ut indocti quoque ac non sentientes ea 
frequenter utantur. Hence he views artistic metaphor as a 
continuation of the natural process. The same opinion is ex- 
pressed by Lobeck in the attractive dissertations de metaphora 
et metonymia, which Friedlander has published (Konigsb. 
1864). Max Miller also (ii. 535) discusses metaphors very 
thoroughly, dividing them into radical and poetical meta- 
phors. We cannot overlook the distinction between the un- 
conscious expression of an image which is, for the naive 
instinct of language, the most natural way of denoting a 
thing, and the intentional choice of one which the poet sum- 
mons in order to reflect in it what he has to denote. But as 
the language of poetry in general approaches closely to the 
creative spirit of the people, so from poetical metaphors light 
may be cast upon those which are instinctive. Thus the 
student of language will be able to learn from collections 
such as the extremely rich one of Hense, ‘Poetic Personi- 
fication in Greek poetry with reference to Latin Poets and to 
Shakspere, part 1. Halle, 1868, continued in two programmes 
(Parchim, 1874, Schwerin, 1877). In this, e.g. it is explained 
how numerous the ways are in which expressions like képa, 
Koun, LéTwIrov, Trovs are used by the poets. 

Here, without rigorously distinguishing the metaphorical 
change of meaning from changes otherwise effected, we may 
point out some instances of repeated transition. We start 
with what is directly obvious. It will be readily admitted 
that the Greek Aevoow ‘see’ (No. 87), though most closely 
corresponding to the Skt. lok ‘see, is connected not only with 
Aevkos, but also with liz, liiceo, if it is remembered that 
lumina and daea denote the eyes, that avydéf(eoAa means in 


copious examples from Greek literature. — From Teutonic languages, 


Zimmer (‘ Nominalsuffix a,’ p. 113) has collected many instances of 


transference “from the physical world to the spiritual sphere.” 
K 


ro" 


13 


1380 BOOK I. 


poetic language ‘to look upon,’ and that also the root depk, as 
we saw on p. 101, is related to O.S. torht ‘splendens. We 
may therefore here state the compound proportion 
Aedcow : AUK =lumina : luceo 

= ddea : paiva 

=atvydfecOat: avy7 

= d€pxopat : torht. 
—We are surprised to find in three languages another root 
for ‘to see,’ giving rise to the conception ‘ opening, hole:’ d7-7, 
Lith. aka ‘hole in the ice;’ Ch.-Sl. ok-no ‘window. We 
may compare also orev-w7ré-s, and the Italian occhi ‘ opening 
or holes in a piece of embroidery’ (ep. below, No. 627). [So 
too eye of a needle, hook and eye, and window, 1. q. wind-eye: 
ep. Skeat’s Dict. s.v.].— Even the much-decried old etymo- 
logy ‘lacus a non lucendo’ has been-so far justified that it 
has been asserted that dwcws meant properly ‘clearing, and 
so far corresponded to the Lith. lauka-s ‘field, and indeed also 
to the O.H.G. léh (Fick i°. 757). There is an analogy for this 
according to Fick, 1°. 534, in the O.Ir. ctad ‘wood’ | Welsh coed] 
beside Goth. haithi ‘field, connected in meaning by the Lat. 
bi-cétu-m, and not improbably compared with O.N. hetdh 
‘brightness, and O.H.G. heit-ar ‘bright.’ In modern German 
too the word Heide ‘heath’ is often found with the meaning of 
‘wood’ (Grimm’s ‘ Wtb.’) [as conversely the English ‘forest’ 
often is a treeless district]. 

The Greek Bpadd-s with its derivatives (No. 255 b) has only 
the meaning of slowness: it is only the form Bpddwr, explained 
by Hesychius as aédvaros, which might lead us to assign a 
different fundamental idea to the adjective. But the Skt. 
mrdu-s (from mardu-s), for which, as soon as metathesis came 
in, we have to expect, according to Greek phonetic laws, an 
initial 8, has preserved the earlier meaning ‘soft, tender,’ 
which occurs also in the Ch.-Sl. mlad-t%. Now, if we further 
compare the Lat. lentu-s, identical with the German lind, with 
leni-s we have the proportion 

Bpadds ‘slow’: Skt. mrdts ‘ soft’ =lentu-s : leni-s. 
(Cp. Fick i3. 750). The form closest to the Greek is the 
O.Ir. mall (Z. 41) lentus, tardus. The old world, which 
honoured even its Achilles above all things as being médas 


INTRODUCTION. 131 


@kvs conceived of slowness as an accident of weakness and 
soft effeminacy. — But the idea of softness was reached by 
language from that of rubbing away, for the Skt. mrdiu-s 
points as clearly to the root mard, ‘rub, rub away, as the 
Greek rept: dobevés, N\errév (Hesych.) points to the root tep, 
teipw (No. 239).— Again from the same fundamental notion 
of rubbing away is developed that of age. The root gar in 
Sanskrit unites both applications ‘to rub away, to make 
small, and ‘to cause to grow old’ (senio conficere). The 
fundamental physical idea has been preserved in grd-nu-m 
and ydpi-s ‘fine meal,’ the metaphorical idea in rép-av, yfpas 
(No. 180). Max Miiller even unites in a similar way the con- 
ception of death with that of rubbing away, and identifies the 
root mor (mort No. 468) with a root mar, which has retained, he 
thinks, its original force in ytAn, mola: according to this view 
yépov: granu-m=mori: mola, This comparison is confirmed 
by the O.N. starfa ‘to exhaust one’s self, ‘to rub one’s self away, 
beside the Eng. starve and the O.H.G. sterpan (sterben) ‘to die’ 
(Zimmer ‘Suff. a, p.311). Similarly capovres beside képve (ep. 
p. 105).—The notion of dirt is developed from that of wetting, 
moistening: for as no one can fail to see the connexion of d&pda 
‘dirt,’ dpdanros ‘dirty, apdadodvr ‘to dirty, with d&pdev ‘to wet,’ 
the connexion of pol-lu-o with lu-o, lav-o is also made clear, 
and the two furnish an adequate analogy for the comparison 
of the Gr. pvdos ‘wetness, rottenness, and pvddw with the 
M.H.G. smuz (No. 479) ‘smut.’— Language conceives of colour 
as a covering, for as color is connected with celare, oc-cul-ere, 
so the Skt. vdrua-s (colour) is with the root var ‘cover, con- 
ceal, the Gk. ypapza with xpos ‘skin, and also the Skt. 
Khavi-s (root sku No. 118 ‘cover’) means both skin and colour. 
—The ground it denoted as ‘the trodden,’ for as the Skt. 
padd-m and the Gr. wédo-v (No. 291) with the Ital. Pedu-m 
point to the root pad ‘tread,’ similarly Bd-@po-vy and Bd-ou-s 
to the primary meaning of Baivyw.— The notion of a meal is 
derived in many ways from the idea of portioning out. Thus 
dai-s, with dala, deimvov, as every one can see, is to be compared, 
not only with dap-s, but also with daz-dvy, and both with the 
Skt. dap, the causative of the root da ‘give’ (No. 261): then 
again payetv ‘eat’ (No. 408) is related to Skt. bhag ‘portion 
K 2 


132 BOOK I, 


out, receive as a portion, enjoy,’ whence bhdg-d-s ‘ share.’ 
Hence ¢ayetv means properly ‘to get one’s share,’ and it was 
therefore limited to the expression of a point of time. I am 
inclined to think with Grassmann that the Skt. root ag¢ ‘eat’ 
(pres. ag-nd-mi), the Greek representative of which will be 
dxondo-s ‘bit’ (p 222), is in the same way akin to a¢ acquire 
(present a¢-nd-mi).—Jacob Grimm (‘Gramm,’ ii. 60) derives the 
Goth. figgr-s (finger) from fangen (fahan). This analogy is 
sufficient to justify us in connecting déxrvAos (No. 11) which, 
as being a diminutive form, points to a lost daxro-s, as digttus 
to dec-etu-s, not with the root dix (defkvupt), to which it could 
be linked only by means of the intermediate form doc-eo 
(Fick 11”. 121), but (in spite of Pott’s protest, 11. 220) with the 
115 root dex: the meaning of this root, employed only in the 
middle forms déxopar, déxyouai, is there used in such an ab- 
stract manner, that there is something surprising in the idea 
of the connexion. But this scruple vanishes when it is re- 
membered that empfangen (receive, take to oneself) is a com- 
pound of fangen (take), and that doxd-s ‘beam,’ doxdvn ‘fork, 
doy ‘span, belong to the same root. —To us the notion of 
‘quiver’ does not seem to come very near to that of ‘bear,’ 
inasmuch as many other things are borne, beside this parti- 
cular article. Certainly nations thought otherwise in those old 
times when no ‘ carried thing’ was so necessary as this, hence 
dapéTpa : root pep=Ch.-Sl. télé ‘quiver’: root tul ‘ bear.’ 
qéXas and wAnoioy ‘near’ are derived from the root mAa, to 
which we must assign the meaning ‘strike, hit’ (cp. No. 
367). This root has been retained without any change of 
meaning in the Ch.-Sl. pra-ti ‘strike.’ If we remember the 
German ‘prallen’ (bounce) and ‘anprallen’ (fly against), 
though these have nothing to do with the root phonetically, 
the connexion in sense will be regarded as a natural one. But 
as 7An-clo-y is to TAG so is the equivalent ix-rap to the root ik, 
Lat. ic-ere (No. 623).— @u-16-c ‘passion, spirit’ belongs to 6v-ety 
‘rush, rage, whence the Thyiads have their name (No. 320), 
as well as the Ch.-Sl. du-chu ‘spiritus. The same relation 
exists between the root kup, which in the Skt. kup-ja-mi 
means ‘to be in motion, in agitation, and then ‘to be angry,’ 
but in the Lat. cup-io only ‘desire,’ and the hypothetical root 


INTRODUCTION, 133 


kvap, which we must assume from the Lith. kudpa-s ‘breath, 
kvép-ti ‘ breathe, reek.’ From this, with the loss of the v, we 
have xazr-vé-s (No. 86) and Skt. kap-¢-s ‘smoke of frankin- 
cense, so that duud-c is related to the Skt. dhiimd-s ‘smoke’ 
(=fu-mu-s) just as kup-ja-mi is to camvé-s. — In the ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xiii. 399, I have shown with reference to farcio and ¢pécce 
by the side of frequens, with the fundamental idea (No. 418) 
retained in the Lith. brukw, how the notions crowd, stuf, 
protect are often attached to one and the same root, also that 
Srequentes is to dpdacey as saepe is to saepire, and as ddévres 
to «ikevv. —Verbs of saying frequently originate in words of 
pointing, so ¢dé-vai from the root pa (paivw No. 407) dicere 
from the root dik, defkvups (No. 14), dod¢éev, which still in 
Homer means ‘to point.’— Mention has been made above of 
the repeatedly recurring connexions between the ideas 
‘separate’ and ‘recognize’ (p. 109). — Even some appellations 
which appear at first sight quite arbitrary and originating 
rather in a witty fancy, recur to our surprise more than once 
in entirely independent regions of language. Poets have in- 
deed called the windows the eyes of the house,—as conversely 
the eye a window of the soul—but the window is explicitly 
called by the Goths augo-dauro, properly the ‘eye-door, by 
the Indians griaksha-s from grha ‘house,’ and aksha-m ‘ eye. 
The O.N. vind-auga along with the English wind-ow is some- 116 
what specialized (cp. Pictet ii. 254), as is gavakshd-s properly 
‘cow's eye, then round window, wil de bauf. The Chil. ok-no, 
which, according to Miklovich, means also ‘shaft’ (of a mine), 
and hence probably ‘ opening’ generally, is mentioned above 
on p. 113.—We shall have therefore to pay good heed to these 
and similar analogies of the transition of meaning in the con- 
sideration of individual etymologies. 


16. 


Our principle of undertaking the etymology of no word 
without having thoroughly instructed ourselves as to its mean- 
ing from the living usage of the Greek language, is met by great 
difficulties in the case of certain kinds of words. In the first 


134 BOOK I. 


place there is the case of isolated words which cannot be said 
to have any usage at all. The ancients distinguished these 
words, so difficult of interpretation, from the rest of the stores 
of language, by the name yAéooa:. The explanation of 
these words, which we must regard as being for the most part 
remains of an older usage, representatives of extinct families, 
has given the learned world plenty of occupation from the 
work of Democritus, wept‘Opjpou, 7) dp0oemeins Kal yAwooéwr, 
to the latest times. Even the connexion in which these words 
are introduced, especially in Homer, often tells us very little 
about their meaning. In the Homeric epos many epithets are as 
traditional as the figures of gods and heroes: and therefore we 
may conjecture for pépomes, dAdnorai, diepds according to the 
connexion any epithet which suits the nature of man, and for 
jvory, vapor? any which suits the qualities of brass, provided 
it does not contradict the Homeric conception. Hence in 
cases like these a special meaning is given us only by the 
grammarians. And we must certainly guard against putting 
too low a value on the grammatical tradition. The Alexan- 
drians possessed in the older literature accessible to them, in 
the collections of the old yAwoooypdédou, in their own collec- 
117 tions of dialectic expressions, certainly drawn in part from 
living usage—as in fact Aristophanes of Byzantium gathered 
Aaxwvikal yXeooa:.—materials denied to us for the explana- 
tion of Homeric glosses, from which perhaps many a word 
could be at once interpreted. The recently discovered Cyprian 
records with their avéyew, mrddAis as quite common words, 
show us how much that is ancient lay hidden in the dialects. 
Since the work of the pioneer in this field, Lehrs de Aris- 
tarchi studiis homericis, no one can enter upon the task of 
explaining Homeric words without having at least ransacked ” 
the Venetian scholiasts and Apollonius Sophista, if he does not 
wish to expose himself to the just charge of superficiality. 


1 The most recent comparison of Fjvoy is that of Bezzenberger ‘Beit.’ 
i. 338, with the Zd. gévg ‘sun, though this is an extremely isolated 
form, hence ‘bright-looking:’ vaépoy, Fick i°. 828, compares with 
O.N. snarp-r ‘sharp ;’ certainly the sharpness of brass is not at all 
in question in the Homeric passages (e.g. A 16 éccavro epi ypoi vapora 
XaAkdy). 


INTRODUCTION. 135 


Even when we employ all the aids accessible the difficulties 
with this class of words are very great, and the determination 
of the meaning of a word merely from its etymology is always 
a ‘periculosae plenum opus aleae.’ 

It is much the same with proper names, the very words for 
which the etymologist is called upon most constantly and most 
zealously to give his aid. It is demanded of him imperatively 
that he should solve by his art the riddle of the history of na- 
tions, the foundation of cities, the beliefs as to the Gods: and 
men are often not ill-disposed to estimate the whole art low, if 
their warm desires are met by the coldness of the investigator. 
Pott has based his extremely rich, inexhaustible book on Per- 
sonal Names upon the principle that ‘there are for the etymolo- 
gist, as a matter of primary belief, absolutely no nomina propria, 
but only appellatives’ (p. 1). This must be so far allowed, that 
certainly every proper name has arisen from an appellative, 
and in countless instances, the fundamental meaning may be 
ascertained with ease and certainty. This is most easy in 
the case of the names which form the proper matter of Pott’s 
book, i.e. personal names, inasmuch as these have been formed, 
at least in great measure, in times known to history, were in 
part intelligible at the time to their own nation, and were de- 
rived from circumstances of life familiar to other nations, even 
though not always explicable at first sight'. But for all this, 118 
with every proper name the etymological operation is by one 
degree more difficult than with an appellative. For having to 
do in etymology with three factors generally, form, meaning, 
and origin, we are furnished in the case of appellatives with 
the first two of these, but in the case of proper names only 
with the first. Hence in the case of the latter we have to deal, 


* Some remarks as to the giving of names are to be found in my 
dissertation on the Delphic inscriptions discovered by Wescher and 
Foucart (‘ Berichte der k. sichs. Ges, der Wissensch.,’ 1864, p. 234).— 
The work of Fick on ‘ The Greek Personal Names’ (Gottingen, 1874) 
opens up new paths for the understanding of personal names. He 
shows there that in most Indo-Germanic languages personal names 
are based essentially on composition: whether this is so, as ex- 
clusively as Fick maintains, is to me doubtful, but the principle 
of ‘pet names’ or shortened names, e, g. Zevéis==Zevéurros, 1s a very 
fruitful one. Cp. ‘Stud.,’ vol. viii, and ix. 


136 BOOK I. 


so to speak, with two unknown quantities. It is therefore 
especially difficult to conjecture the meaning of proper names, 
and above all of local and mythical names. We do not refer 
here to the fact that in respect of both classes, even a man 
who is inclined to explain the Greek nation, Pelasgians as 
well as Hellenes, entirely from itself and its early history, 
cannot entirely disregard the influence of foreign stocks and 
nations. But even if, as is certainly the case with the great 
majority of names, Greek stems and roots lie at their base, 
difficulties enough are left remaining. In names of places we 
are helped by exact knowledge, by the aspect of the locality, 
which may be so characteristic that the meaning of the name 
at once becomes clear. But this is proportionately seldom the 
case, and there are so many motives for naming a place, 
natural, historic, mythologic, derived sometimes from the 
situation itself, sometimes from its inhabitants, that as a rule 
not one but many possibilities are furnished!. It is still more 
difficult with mythological etymologies. For in order to dis- 
cover the meaning in such cases we must have some mytholo- 
gical conception as a basis from which to start. Are we to 
look for the occasion of the names of Gods in natural pheno- 
mena, or in ethical conceptions, in Greek localities, or in 
common natural circumstances, in the splendour of the morn- 
ing and its beams, or the cloud-mountain and its rain-torrents? 
Are we to seek the source of the names of the heroes in his- 
torical and human, or on the other hand in physical facts, or 
indeed, in many cases, outside the Indo-Germanic world alto- 
gether? From the stand-point of language it is often quite 
impossible to come to a decision, especially as we find here a 
circumstance which creates great difficulties in the whole 
sphere of Greek etymology, i.e. the number of homonyms in 
Greek. In consequence of the extent to which the Greeks 
lost the three spirants 7 v and s, often without having any 
traces of them left, many words and stems originally distinct 
in sound became identical in their form. For instance a final 
-ov might equally well represent any one of the original roots 


1 Ernst Curtius (‘Gott. Anz.,’ Nachr. 1861, p. 143 ff.) treats of 
‘geographic onomatology, and especially of the names of promon- 
tories. 


INTRODUCTION. 137 


ak (dyrouat) ‘see,’ vak (dy) ‘call, speak, ap (dm, Lat. opus) 119 
‘work, vap (Fe) ‘to be busy:’ the syllable 16 might be re- 
ferred equally well to vid ‘see, or to svid ‘sweat. In fact 
even before the distinctively Greek stage of the language there 
were homonymous roots, such as sak sequi, €&recOar and sak 
dicere, évio7-etv, even after the gutturals were divided into 
_ two classes. But it is just this plurality of meanings in 
a word which is a main cause of its difficulty. Hence ety- 
mological science in such cases can often only determine the 
sphere within which the meaning may lie, and not actually 
furnish it. For instance, linguistically the name ’Ayi-Aev-s 
may in its second part be traced back equally well to the 
stem Aao ‘people, as in Baci-rev-s, Aev-rvyxidns, or to the stem 
Aaa ‘stone, as in Acev-w ‘stone. One who regards the heroes 
as historical personages will prefer the former hypothesis; one 
who views them as humanized deities who originated in 
natural conceptions, will prefer the second, seeing in Achilles 
a river-god. But we cannot allow what Preller—following 
earlier scholars—appears to regard as possible (by grouping 
together in ‘Myth.’ 11”. 400 ’Ayircv-s and ’AyedGo-s), that the 
former part of the word denotes ‘water’ and may be com- 
pared with the Latin aqua. For in the place of aqua, which 
corresponds to the Goth. ahva of identical meaning, we 
can hardly assume any other form in Greek than az, a form 
which seems to be preserved in the names Meoodmriot, 1.e. 
MecOddpiot, Mecoaréar. But even the identification of the 
first element ’Ayi- with the extremely common ’Fye-, e.g. in 
"Eyé-hao-s, Eyé-orparo-s, Exé-dno-s, is not without its diffi- 
culty, now that we have learnt how rarely the Greek language, 
especially before explosives, wavers between a and «. We might 
rather be tempted to connect’A yi- with dyos, dyvupat. But if 
any one desired with Benseler to translate the name ‘ Painer ’ 
(Schmerzer), he would find the final syllable a hard nut to 
crack: and any one who was attracted by the old explana- 
tion ‘troubler of the Ilians, which Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 211 en- 
deavours to bring into favour again, would find the F and the 
long vowel of FiAvos an insuperable obstacle in his path. Can 
we be surprised to find that after so many unsuccessful 
attempts, some others have made their appearance, according 


138 BOOK I. 


to which ’A yiAAeds is not a compound at all? Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ 
x. 98 interprets the name as ‘clear-shining, regarding the @ as 
prothetic, and taking yeA (No. 197) as the root. Fick ii*. 8 
translates ‘Achilles’ in precisely the opposite way as ‘ the 
dark,’ and compares the word with dy-Av-s. This example 
may serve to show how little there is which is impossible in 
such a case.—It very often happens that the science of lan- 
guage can at least interpose a decided veto. This is the 
120 case, for instance, with the comparison, formerly much in 
favour, of “Hpa with the Lat. gra (héra), seeing that we now 
know that the oldest form of the Latin word was esa (Gust. 
Loewe ‘ Acta Soe.’ Lips. ii. 472), for Lat. s never corresponds to 
a Greek p: and it is the same with the connexion of this name 
with épa ‘earth’ (Welcker ‘Gotterl.’ i. 363), because, to say 
nothing of the difference in quantity, the spiritus asper for the 
lenis, though not indeed unexampled, still hardly ever occurs 
without leaving traces of another initial sound in some dialect 
or other or in some related form. We must as decisively re- 
ject the frequently repeated derivation of the name Anré from 
Aadetv, so far at any rate as the name is maintained to be 
Greek. For it is wholly inconceivable that by the side of 
AjOos, Ann, the 6 should in this name change without any 
provocation into a 7. On the contrary it is one of the chief 
characteristics of the Greek language to hold firmly to the 
gradations of the mutes, and from this there are but few ex- 
ceptions, and these of a definite kind and confined to narrow 
limits. I cannot agree with either Benfey (Hofer’s ‘ Ztschr.’ 
il. 117) or with Welcker (‘Gotterl.’ i. 8300) that ‘the etymo- 
logical relations of sound are not to be pressed in all their 
rigour in the case of proper names. On the contrary with- 
out such rigour all attempts at etymology are impossible. 
For this very reason it is much to be desired that historians, 
topographers, mythologists and ethnologists should make them- 
selves acquainted with the simple principles of comparative 
philology, in order to have the instruments it supplies always 
at their command, and to avoid coming into collision with it. 
But mythological etymology has other dangers peculiar to 
itself, which it is the more necessary to mention, because com- 
parative mythologists of later years in particular have not 


INTRODUCTION, 139 


always succeeded in avoiding them. In the attempt to con- 
nect Greek mythical names with the Indian, they have too 
often neglected to regard the Greek in connexion with the 
family of words to which they belong, and in the meaning 
which they have outside the pale of mythology. Thus Max 
Muller in his able essay on ‘Comparative Mythology’ (Oxford 
Essays, 1857, p. 81, now reprinted in his ‘Chips,’ vol. ii) com- 
pares the Greek ”Epws with the Skt. drvan, drushi, arushd, 
which forms, as he shows, starting from the original meaning 
~ ‘runner, horse,’ denote the Sun-god. We pass over the doubts 
which might perhaps arise against the supposition, which 
Muller brings out so poetically, that love is denoted as the 
rising sun. But how can we separate ”"Epws from €po-s, papa, 
Epdw, €paros, €pare.vos and other words, which are all of old 
date, and in fact Homeric? They could not have arisen from 
the name épas, and if we suppose their origin to be the same 121 
root ar, to which we should be obliged to give the original 
meaning ‘go, run, strive, then épcs would mean something 
like ‘striving, impulse, and it would be hard to show that the 
cognate *Epws had originated in the precise meaning ‘horse, 
sun-horse, assumed for the Sanskrit words quoted. I hold 
the same opinion of the explanation of the Xdpires as the Skt. 
haritas (the name given in the Vedas to the horses of the sun), 
at first sight attractive, and approved also by Leo Meyer (‘ Be- 
merkungen, p. 39), but rejected by Sonne in his exhaustive 
essay on Charis (‘ Ztschr.’ x. 96 ff.) and by Pott 1%. 897, W. 11. 
1.209. For what are we to do with the appellative ydprs, 
and with yapd, yalpw, xaplfouat, yapiers? Max Miller 
(11°. 418) now endeavours to derive both these words and the 
Sanskrit har-it ‘yellow, pale, from the root ghar, to which he 
assigns the fundamental meaning of ‘glittering brightness :’ 
Xapi-s as a substantive would then originally mean ‘brightness, 
harit as an adjective ‘ bright ones.’ But the assumption of an 
adjective is still very bold in the case of Greek, and the ex- 
planation that ‘one of the derivatives of the root was carried 
off by the stream of mythology’ would excuse this, only if a 
more decided parallel really existed in the Greek conception 
between the Xépires and the horses of the sun: and this’ 
Miller himself does not altogether assume. But further, we 


i) 


140 BOOK I. 


cannot banish from Homer all personifications of abstract 
ideas: Aeipds, PdBos,” Epis,” ATn,” HBn show this. I believe 
therefore that the mythical Xdpis was never distinct from the 
xépis of real life. With respect to the physical basis of this 
conception, to which we shall recur in No. 185, Sonne’s 
thorough discussion should be consulted. The attempts to 
refer a mythical name to a definite object, and the simple use 
of the appellative may not always agree well together; as e.g. 
Leo Meyer himself feels in his explanation of viudn and 
Noppa (‘Bemerk.’ p. 66). But as certainly as class-names 
are older than proper names, so certainly must we regard as 
unsatisfactory any etymology of the latter which leaves unex- 
plained a class-name evidently connected with it. As we must 
by no means exempt mythological etymology from the neces- 
sity of paying attention to phonetic laws, so we can as little 
excuse it from the duty of looking at every word in connexion 
with its family of related words. Purely linguistic etymology 
is in relation to mythology and other studies that need the 
explanation of words a kind of topic science. It teaches how 
to find in accordance with phonetic laws and the analogies of 
the change of meaning, the place where the etymon of a word 
may be sought, and how to avoid the errors in which etymo- 
logical dilettantism with its dim glimmer of ‘similarity in 
sound’ and not less dull light of ‘connexion of meaning’ must 
always lose itself, and especially when despising linguistic 
studies, it seeks in names merely the confirmation of the views 
of things which it has already formed. Still the meanings of 
difficult words can frequently only be discovered by a lucky 
dive into the stores of a knowledge of the subject, and always 
resemble to a certain extent conjectures in the realm of text- 
criticism. Just as grammar or palaeography cannot be re- 
quired to restore to perfect correctness the texts of authors, so 
etymology as a branch of study cannot be expected to solve 
all the riddles offered by words. But it furnishes by the 
evidence of phonetic laws, by an abundance of examples, and 
by placing together what is mutually connected, the indispen- 
sable tools for etymological divination: and this is the sense 
in which I give to this attempt the name of ‘Principles of 
Greek Htymology.’ 


Il. 


SECOND BOOK 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS 


"Ey oupBddAopat roior eupavear rd py yryyookopeva Texparpdpevos, 


Herod, ii. 33. 


Transliteration of the Sanskrit Alphabet. 


eee eR eae ns en eee ee IP 


CoNSONANTS, 
A 


Ah: fceeperorts ye Sig ES eee a 
Gutturals, | Palatals.|Linguals.| Dentals.| Labials. agus 


ee 
= OCCU | > 


i || wtau || @gh | Rgh| edh| wdh| a bh 


Aspirate 
su Fn | 7H | Un | An | am] gh 
Fu Wp ea she es ayy 
Mr W ¢ 
ar | 


Anusvdra (a slight appended nasal) is represented by an inverted 
comma placed below the preceding vowel (a). 


fine the Skt. Alphabet: =, r=ri, f=11, h=ng in hing 
K=ch in church, &=j in judge (so commonly pronounced: but 
cp. p. 27), h=gn in Campagna, J=y in yes, ¢=ch in Germ. 
Sichel (see p. 32), t, d, m are commonly pronounced as t, d, n but 
they were produced originally by the influence of a neighbouring r: 
the lower surface of the tongue should be brought against the palate 
in pronouncing them: V = probably the Eng. w. kh, th, ph are 
pronounced almost as in inkhorn, pothouse, topheavy, gh, dh, bh as 
in loghouse, madhouse, Hobhouse. | 


In the transliteration of the Zend Alphabet I follow Justi, 
‘Handbuch der Zendsprache’ (Leipzig, 1864). The most important 
points to be noticed are 

j = Skt. & [Eng. j], y = Skt. j [Eng. y], ¢c = K [Eng. ch]. 

For the sounds of the Iranic languages and of Armenian, cp. Hiibsch- 

mann ‘Ztschr,’ xxiii. 1 ff.—gh, dh are in Zend spirants of a later 


origin. 


144, BOOK II. 


Transliteration of the Cyrillic Alphabet. 
(Cp. Schleicher ‘ Beitr.’ i. p. 30 ff.) 


aa M m ® ui (dull, light u) 
B b Non bl y 
B v (German W) | 0 o b i (light i) 
Tr ¢ I p 'B e (long e) 
ad pot 10 ju 
Ee C s mh ja 
i Z (French J) T t te je 
Z z (soft s) OY u & e(in inthe French fin) 
H j x ch (German ch) | ia je 
Hj y ¢ (German z) | &a(onintheFrenchon) 
Kk # c (tsch) i ja 
A 1 ms (sch) 
* y in Bohemian words has the sound of r followed by 
a French J. 
Lithuanian. 


The nasalized vowels are denoted as in Slavonic by an inverted 
comma subscript (a ¢ } 1), which does not affect the pronunciation. 
e denotes an open e (a). 
é a closed long e appended to i, as in the Germ. See. 
é a diphthongal sound, lying intermediate between ea and ia, 
written by others ie and arising out of i. 
t is to be pronounced like o with a following a. 
y isa long 1. 
Z isa soft S as in Slavonic. 
% is a French j as in Slavonic. 
sz = ChSl. 8 is the Germ. sch [Eng. sh]. 
The Grave accent denotes an accented short vowel (sékti), the Acute 
an accented long vowel (Zolé). 
(Cp. Schleicher ‘ Lit. Gramm,’ p. 7 ff.) 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 145 


Irish. bce 


The needful remarks with regard to the Irish consonants we 


found at the head of the several sections. Cp. Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ p. 160. 
Here follow some remarks as to the phonetic laws of the vowels 
in Old Irish, Cp. Ebel ‘ Beitriige’ i. 163, Windisch ‘ Beitr. z. Gesch. 
der deutschen Sprache’ iv. 204. 

The accent over the vowels only denotes their length. 

In most words the earliest demonstrable form of the intensifi- 
cation of 1 and u is a long é and 6, for which, however, we find, 
even in the earliest authorities, the 1a and ua which appear with 
constantly increasing frequency where a syllable with a broad 
vowel follows or followed. Rarer forms of the intensified 1 are 
Ol oe ai ae (never alternating with é), in the place of which the 
modern language presents us throughout with ao (aon unus, in the 
place of the old oin oen ain aen). The appearance of au (alter- 
nating with 6) as an intensification of u is still rarer. An origiral 
ava or Va seems as a rule to occur as a long 0. A long i can only 
be proved with certainty for the I-row in the few cases in which an 1 
originally short has suffered compensatory lengthening: it has also 
occasionally arisen at the beginning of a word from an original ja. 
A long é is not always of diphthongal origin, but has often arisen by 
the compensatory lengthening of an a. 

It is a well-known fact that we have in Irish (the later the 
authority the more this appears) the endeavour to assimilate the 
vowels of neighbouring syllables. In this respect the influence which 
i (and e) exert backwards is especially important. LHither it assimi- 
lates to itself the vowel of the preceding syllable, and then an a 
becomes an i (e), or it forces its way bodily into the preceding 
syllable. Thus arises a series of secondary diphthongs and triph- 
thongs :— 

a becomes ai ei (01) wl, 

é becomes ei if of diphthongal origin, é1ui éui fui éoi if it 
has originated from compensatory lengthening, 

e ou 4 6% ia ua become respectively ei 01 ui di 61 Ti 
lal ual. 

In the old language u has, though to a less extent, the same influ- 
ence backwards. It assimilates a and the weakened forms of a to 
u (0) or it forces its way bodily into the preceding syllable, Usually 
au eu and iu have arisen in this way. A following a changes i 


* 


and u in the preceding syllable into e and o. 


L 


146 BOOK II. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION 


IN SANSKRIT, ZEND, GREEK, ITALIAN, 


aca ae Sanskrit. Zend. Greek. Italian. 
a a a (e 0) aeo aeo 
1 
Fy fi 4 Gn w 466 
1 i re 1 
e 
LAr} i 7 t 1 
u u u v u 
Oo 
ui (?) ti 0 v u 
al é aé at €l OL al é oi 
ae oel1u 
al al al an® 
au ao éu av ev ov au oO 
u 
au au Au av nv au 
< kkhkK | k khe K eq 
k G K e (Umbr. ¢) 
pe | 8.8) Je ehyzhz y g 
eh* ghh |g ghjzhz X init. h med. g 
t 6 th t th T t 
d d d dh 8 d 
Lat. Osc. Umb. 
dh dh d dh fi) init. f med. d, b si 
P p ph pf 7 P 
b b os B b . 
Lat. Osc. Umb. 
bh bh b (w) p init. f med. b f 
n nh ii nh n y before gutt. n 
n nn n v n 
m m m m m 
r I r p 1 
l ] I rd 1 
j j y init. spir. asp. J 
Ss s sh s ¢ sh h | a, spir. asp. s (r) 
V V V F Vv 


* For the traces of a two-fold g and gh it is sufficient to refer to pp. 84, 87. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 


OF SOUNDS. 


TEUTONIC, CHURCH-SLAVONIC, LITHUANIAN, AND OLD IRISH. 


EEE 


Teutonic. 
Gothic. | Old High Germ. 
Bet tL nel a 

al au eo 
é 6 a (6) uo 
i al ie 
el i 
u au uo 
u? 0 
al el 
au, iu | ou 6 iu lo 
h (g) hv} h (g) hw 
h(g) | b(e) 
k k (ch) 
g g (k) 
th (d) d 
t Z sZ 
d t 
if f, v (b) 
b b (p) 
n n 
n n 
m m 
r r 
] | 
J j 
s (z) s (r) 
Vv WwW 


Senex NK DD CX 


co eo 


4 6c ep r BRE BS 


Slavonic. 


fo) 


N WN 


m< 


Lithuanian. 


147 


Old Irish. 


a4 61010 


61 Ai 6 
6e Ae ia 
au tia 6 
een (fs) 
e ch (g) 

$ 

$ 
t th (d) 

i, 

d 

b 

n 

n 

m 

is 

1 

s 


init. f, after cons. b, 
Brit. gw | 


K 


130 A Greek « has in etymology two different values. It 
corresponds :— 

(1) To an Indo-Germanic k. In Sanskrit this is repre- 
sented by k, kh, or K, in Zend by k, kh, c, in Latin by ¢ (4), qu, 
seldom by g, in Gothic by A, or hv, in the middle of words 
also by g, in Church-Slavonic by &, &, c, in Lithuanian by &, in 
Old Irish by ec, between vowels by ch, g, in the British lan- 
guages either by the same sounds as in Irish, or by p (0). 

(2) To an Indo-Germanic &. This is represented in 
Sanskrit and Zend by ¢, in Church-Slavoniec by s, in Lithua- 
nian by sz, but in Latin by ¢ (k), seldom by g, in Gothie by 
h, in the middle of words also by g, in Old Irish and the 
British languages by c (ch, 9). 

ox corresponds to an Indo-Germanice sk, Skt. Kh, Lat. se. 


1. Root ark ayx-oy bend, ayx-vro-s crooked, ayx-vAn 
noose, dyx-o-s bend, hook, circumference, dyxivo-s 
hook. 

Skt. rt. ak dik-d-mi I bend, ank-d-s lap, hook. — 
Zd. aka (M.) a rivet. 
Lat. anc-u-s (qui aduncum bracchium habet Paul 
p. 19, 15), wnc-u-s ad-unc-us, unc-tnu-s, ung-ulu-s. 
Goth. agga (hals-agga nape of the neck), OHG. angul 
hook. 

Lith. anka the noose which holds the sail-yard 
(Nesselm.). 

Ir. écath, écad hamus. 

Benf. ii. 22, P. W. under ankas and ak. Pott W. ii. 119, Fick i*, 
6, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 309. — The rest of the related words in Greek 
readily occur. dyxds, dyxddn, aykoivn correspond remarkably closely to 
the meaning of ‘arm’ which is established for azkd-s. For the mean- 
ing of dyxo-s the fem. dykn’ yeavia, péyeOos (Hesych.) must be noticed. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 149 


— The neuter ank-as ‘ bending,’ agrees perfectly in sound with éy-os 131 
‘ravine, while aikugd-s ‘hook’ agrees in meaning with wneu-s, as 
with the OHG. angul. It is probable that angulu-s has the same 
relation to ancu-s, as ungulu-s (anulus), that was held to be an 
Oscan word (Mommsen ‘U. D.’ 306), and was an Old-Latin one 
(Fest. 375), had to uneu-s. 

2. Root ak a@k-ay-pévo-s pointed, dx-wx-7 point, ax-dv7n 
whetstone, dx-wy (st. dkovT) javelin, dk-avo-s, ak- 
ava thorn, &k-po-s pointed, dkpi-s, éxpi-s mountain 
peak, @x-v-s swift. 

Skt. dc-an sling-stone, stone, acdni-s missile, acv-s 
swift, -agra-s (in compounds) -cornered, dcri-s 
corner. 

Lat. ac-u-s, acu-o, dcer, acu-ped-iu-s. — 6c-ior, 6c-tter. 

ONorse egg-ja sharpen, excite. [Eng. egg on.| 

Lith. asz-t-rt-s, ChSl. os-t-r% sharp. 

OCymr. ocet raster, auc (=@x-) in di-auc segnem, 
Corn. di-oc piger (Z?. 149, 894). 

ope yy. 1. 491, Benf. 1.1155 ff., Roth * Ztechr’ j1. 46, *P. W.’ i. 510; 
Joh. Schmidt ‘Die Wurzel ak,’ Weimar, 1865, Stokes ‘Beitr. iv. 414.— 
acupedwus (Paul. ‘Ep.’ p. 9) ‘dicebatur cui praecipuum erat in currendo 
acumen pedum.’ Cp. Plac. gl. acu pedwm velocitate pedum. For acer 
(st. acrz), Old-Lat. acru-s, Charis. i. p.117 K. On the Umbrian stem 
okri, which corresponds to the Latin ocri (nom. ocri-s, mons confragosus), 
and the diminutive Ocriculu-m, see A. und K. ‘Umbr. Sprachdenkm.’ 11. 
64. — Ocior can hardly be a borrowed word, but has the same change of 
vowel that the Gk. word has. — dk-p7 identical in meaning with ac-ie-s, 
approaches most closely to the Lith. asz-mi (st. asz-men) ‘sharpness.’ 
— The meanings sharp, pointed, swift, with the common idea of pene- 
trating (Doederl. ‘G1’ 180), are united in this root (cp. akides evaria 
Hes.). From the amplified root aks (cp. Skt. aksh ‘reach,’ ‘ hit’) is 
derived dév-s ‘ swift,’ perhaps also as-ti, asti-tu-s with s for x, as in 
Ses-tius, tes-ta, tes-tu (No. 235); further Cymr. awch ‘edge,’ acc. to 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 309, also ochyr, ochr ‘margo’ (Z’, 827)? The 
Ir. aichr, Cymr. egr ‘acer,’ must be borrowed. 

3. a&k-pov (st. dxkuov) anvil, thunderbolt. 

Skt. de-ma@ (st. agman) stone, thunderbolt, a¢-ma- 
rd-s made of stone. 

ONorse hamar-r (saxum, malleus), OHG. hamar 
(malleus). 

Lith. ak-mit (st. ak-men), ChSl. ka-meni stone. 


150 BOOK II. 


Bopp ‘G1’, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 400, Pott W.1. 502. — In German as in 
Slavonic metathesis has taken place. — Roth ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 42 shows, 
starting from the meaning stone, how first that of ‘sling-stone, thunder- 
bolt’ was derived from it (Hes. ‘Theog.’ 722 yadxeos adxpov ovpavdbev 
kxati@v) ; secondly, that of ‘anvil’ and ‘hammer, thirdly, that of the ‘vault 
of heaven,’ thought of as stone. Hence Zend agman ‘stone’ and 
‘heaven,’ and likewise Hesych. “Axpov Odpavds, dxpovidar of ovpavidar: 


iZ 


"Akpovos 6 Otpavés ‘AAkuay ap. Eustath. p. 1154, 25. — The meaning 


‘stone’ is evident in dkpova’ dderpiBavov (pestle) Kvmpior (Hesych.). 
The root seems to be No, 2. — Cp. Aufrecht ‘Ztschr. v. 135 f. 
4. axyxé-s (@pwos Hesych.) shoulder. — Lat. d-la (for ax-la), 
axilla. — OHG. ahsala, wohsa shoulder. 


Otherwise Benf. i. 352, who connects also Hesychius’s gloss 
axxadiBap kpaBBaros with dkyés; this Laconian word cannot, however, 
be separated from ddiBap vexpés, and seems to mean ‘a bier.’ — dxxés 
itself indeed is not firmly established, for in the manuscript opés, not 
épos, occurs (Mor. Schmidt ‘Hesych.’ s. v.). J. Grimm Dict. s. v. 
Achse conjectures relationship with dav (No. 582), and origin in the 
Root dy (No. 117), in the sense of turning round, cp. Pott W. ii. 
376. — Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ i?. 641, Goetze ‘Studien’ ii. 170; Osthoff 
‘Forschungen’ 1. 193 ; Fick 1°. 478. — It is better not to connect the 
Ir. ast/, Corn. ese) membrum’(Cymr. aylaut membrum, Z?. 842 1), as 
the Brit. s does not usually correspond to a Lat. a. 


5. dAkn elk. — Skt. rea-s, *#¢ja-s the buck of a kind of 
antelope. — Lat. alce-s.— OHG. elaho. Norse elg-r. 
— Ch8l. lost elk. : 


Pott W. 1. 2, 456.— A. Weber ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 320, where, however, 
the Latin hireu-s is wrongly compared with it, for the A in it is 
shown by the Sabine fireu-s (Varro L. L. v. 97) to belong to the stem. 
— On the mistake in connecting it with dpxros and the relationship to 
€kados cp. apxros No. 8.— On the a that has been introduced in 
OHG. v. Kirchhoff ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 39. — Dietrich ‘ Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 81, 38, 
considers the Latin and Gk. word to be borrowed from the German. 
— Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ ii. 146. 

6. addxvedy (st. GAKvov) sea-kingfisher. — Lat. alcédo. — 
OHG alacra. 

Forstemann ‘Ztschr.” i. 48. The spr. lenis is established by 
I 563, and authenticated by other passages too; the spir. asp. is 
only Attic, and is rightly explained by Forstemann as the result of 
the similarity of the sound with that of as, whence the etymology 
mapa 76 ev GNi xvety (EK. M.),—The genuine Latin alcedo (Varro. L. L. vii. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 151 


§ 88 ‘haec avis nunc graece dicitur ddkvev’), and the OHG. form 
prove that the word began with a vowel. — Hence Benfey’s explanation 
ii. 165 is a wrong one. — Here we have words with the same stem and 
the same meaning, and with different suffixes. 

7. Root ddAk, apk @dA-adk-ety to keep off, adx-4 defence, 
strength, apx-é-m I keep off, suffice, dpx-.o-s 
sufficient, safe, &px-os protection. | 

Lat. rt. are arc-e-0, arx, arc-a chest, arc-era covered 
waggon. 

Olr. rt. are du-imm-aircthe artabatur, itimm-aircnib 
in carceribus, du-m-es-urc-sa defendo me (Z?. 881- 
884). 

Pott W. 11. 1, 100; 2, 455.— An amplification of dx by means of a 
vowel is ddééo, which corresponds to the Skt. raksh (for rak-s, ark-s) 
rakshami ‘ defend,’ ‘ protect ;’ ep. p. 64, Nos. 24 and 581.— In the 
root dpx the positive meaning, ‘suffice,’ ‘ hold good,’ is prominent, in 
ax the negative one, ‘to keep off’ But Simonides Ceus fr. 102 B 
i{pxeoav=arcuerunt. Lat. arc-s ‘defence, Mommsen ‘Rom. H.’ (i. 39). — 
Perhaps the Goth. alh-s vads, iepov, AS. ealh-stede ‘palatium’ belongs 
here, as being a protected place (Delbriick ‘Ztschr. f. deutsche Philo- 133 
logie’ i. 133), as also the AS. ealgian ‘ shelter,’ ‘ protect,’ and the 
Lith. rakinti ‘shut, according to Fick i*. 22. — The Iv. orceatd ‘occidit,’ 
and probably frith-orcun ‘ offensa,’ na frid-oirced ‘ne offendat,’ belong 
to a rt. org (Z?. 61); cp. Skt. raksh ‘protect,’ and raksh ‘ injure.’ 

8. dpxto-s bear, also &pko-s, &px-tAo-s young bear. — Skt. 
¢ksha-s bear (from arksa-s).— Lat. ursu-s (from 
Uresu-s). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott i. 85. — On dpxos and dpkidos cp. A. Nauck ‘ Aris- 
tophanis Byzantii fragm.’ p. 111, 115. — Kuhn ‘ Hoefer’s Ztschr.’ i. 
155, regards the root ark ‘shine’ (No. 24) as the root (cp. M. Miiller 
ii. 361), more correctly, however, the PW. the root arg (rig) ‘hurt’ 
=ddex cp. p.61). Likewise Pictet i. 427. — Kirchhoff’s and Forste- 
mann’s connexion of the word with OHG. elaho (No. 5), ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 
39, 493, cannot be allowed on account of the difference between the 
animals. 

9. Root dak dék-v-w I bite, déx-os a biting beast, d7y- 
pa bite. 

Skt. rt. dag dd¢-a-mi I bite, da¢-a-s d¢¢-man bite. 
Goth. tah-ja lacero, OHG. zdéh-i tough (Germ. zdhe). 


Bopp ‘GI.’ Pott W. ii. 2, 506. — Lat. lac-er-o belongs to No. 86. 
Miklosich ‘ Lex.,’ Fick i°. 611 connect the ChS]. desna ‘ gums.’ 


152 BOOK II. . 


10. ddxpu, dékpv-o-v tear, daxpv-w I weep. — Lat. lacruma. 
— Goth. tagr tear, tagr-ja I weep; OHG. zahar, 
NHG. Zdhre. — OCymr. dacr lacrima (Z?. 827) ; 
Olr. dér. 

Grimm ‘Gesch.’-300 refers it to Skt. dag, dak a tear ‘bites.’ — Pott 
W. ii. 2, 509. — There is a trace of an Old-Latin initial d for 7 in 
Paul. ‘Ep.’ p. 68 ‘dacrimas pro lacrimas Livius saepe posuit,’ and 
Bergk is undoubtedly right in reading in Ennius’s epitaph ‘nemo me 
dacrumis decoret’ [ Cie. ‘de Sen.’ 73] (‘ Philol.’ xiv. 187). — The con- 
nexion with the Skt. agra and Lith. aszard, is, in spite of the similarity 
of meaning, doubtful on account of the initial letter, especially as both 
words may have been formed from the root ak ‘be sharp, in a similar 
way to that in which the words here brought together were formed 
from the root dak. Cp. Aufrecht ‘On the Uggvaladatta’ p. 277 n. 


ll. dékrv-do-s finger. — Lat. digitu-s. — AS. td, OHG. 
zéhd toe. 

Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 403. — Sdervdo-s is a secondary form, the prototype 
of which must be sought in dig-itu-s. The latter word has g for c, 
like wigintit (No. 16), and comes from an older deceto-s. A shorter 
form occurs as the base of the Teutonic words. The root I hold to 
be dex (dex) in dék-o-par, and its meaning has the same relation to the 
root as that of Germ. Finger ‘finger,’ to fangen ‘catch’ (p.113). A more 
physical meaning of the root dex is to be seen in the Homeric 6 8’ edegaro 
xetpi, and in deéids (No. 266), Soxds ‘beam,’ Soxdvyn ‘fork,’ 80x7, doxos, 
dSoxetov ‘ vessel,’ SeEapern ‘cistern’ (that which has caught), ‘ reservoir,’ 
and Soyuy ‘span,’ on which cp. Lobeck ‘ Paralipp.’ 395. By this the 
doubts expressed by Corssen (‘ Beitr.’ 47, cp. 11”. 208), are removed ; 
he takes digitu-s to be the ‘ pointer,’ but leaves the Gk. and Teutonic 
words unexplained. déka too (No. 12), the sum of the fingers, is re- 
lated to this root. — Otherwise Pott 111. 220, Fick i°. 611. 

134 12. déxka ten. — Skt. Zd. ddécan. — Lat. decem, Umbr. de- 
cendu-f duodecim. — Goth. tathun, OHG. zéhan. — 
ChSl. desett, Lith. dészimtis. — Oly. detch(n-), OCymr. 
dec. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ &c. On the formation of the Slavo-Lithuanian form 
see Schleicher ‘Kirchensl. 98. Olr. detch(n-) points to a prehis- 
toric form dec-in, the final nasal is kept e.g. in detch m-bai ‘ decem 
vaccae. The simple form dec deac (Z’. 304) has not yet been ex- 
plained. — Cp. No. 11. 

13. Root depk dépx-o-war I see, dépy-pya look, dpéx-wyr (st. 
dpak-ovT) dragon, dopk-ds (st. dopx-ad) gazelle. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 153 


Skt. rt. dar¢ (from dark) see, perf. da-dare-a, dig eye. 

OS. torh-t splendens, OHG. zorahé bright, clear. 

OlIr. rt. dere con-dercar conspicitur, ad-con-dare con- 
spexl (=dédopka, Z?. 448), dere eye, air-dirce, ir- 
dirce conspicuus. , 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 531 Grimm, ‘Gesch.’ 402, Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ 
x1l. 351. — dpaxwy mapa Td dépka, 7d Brera’ dEvdepKes yap ro CGov E. M., 
so also édus from root dx, ér (No. 629).— Cp. above, p. 101. — Per- 
haps Pott is right in supposing for tmddpa (ii?, 938, W. i. 137) a 
shorter root dar, dra, which may be compared with the Skt. dar 
(a-dar ‘to take care’), and the Lith. dyr-o-ti ‘to gape.’ Perhaps the 
Lat. rec-ens (for drec-ens, as dr is avoided at the beginning of a 
word) belongs here, with the meaning of the OSax. torht ‘ bright.’ — 
Fick 1°. 106 also connects ASax. gt-trah-t-ian, OHG. trahtin. In 
formation this would correspond to dpoxrageis’ mepiBdérecs Hesych. 

14, Root dik (dex) defk-ve-pe I show, detéi-s a pointing 

out, devy-va something pointed out, dix-n justice. 

Skt. rt. dice, (dic-d-mi) show, exhibit, point out, dic, 
dicd judgement (of men and gods). 

Lat. rt. dic, dic-o, causi-dtc-us, in-dic-o, juidex, dic-ts 
causa. 

Goth. teth-a nuntio, OHG. zihw accuse (Germ. zeihen), 
zeigom show (Germ. zeigen). 

OlIr. do-decha=dicat (?) (cf. Windisch Kurzgef. Ir. 
Gr. p. 114), (Hy. 5, 81). 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott W. ii. 2,511 Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 403. — diky has kept, 
both in the tragic ace. dikny ‘after the fashion,’ and in the Homeric 
avirn tor dixn oti Gedy (r 43, cp. w 255), the old meaning of ‘way.’ As 
to the later use cp. ju-dew (= jus-dew) and the German echt 
weisen ‘to put into the right way.’ dic-io is also related ; it calls to 
mind the Skt. dig ‘regio;’ the verb di¢ has in Skt. also the mean- 
ing ‘command’ which appears in dictator (cp. Tep-dikka-s), dishta-m 
is fatum. Further con-dic-io (Corssen 17. 52), properly an agreement. 
Sonne ‘Ztschr.’ xv. 52 gives some interesting groupings of words re- 
lated to this root, among which, however, I cannot allow Sé:xeiv ‘to cast,’ 
to have a place. — With the isolated Ir. do-decha, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
vii. 47, and viii. 310, connects the isolated futures in-dia and a[d]- 
déos. 

15. Root d0Kx dox-é-@ I am valued at, am of opinion, dééa 
value, opinion. — Skt. ddc-as- fame, grace (by the 
side of jaécas). — Lat. dec-et, dec-us, dig-nu-s, 


154 BOOK II. 


Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 265, Stokes ‘ Beitr. viii. 310. —dagas occurs 

135 only in the derivative dagas-jami ‘to be gracious.  Grassmann 

assumes a primary form djacas. Cf. below, p. 611.— OI. doich 

‘verisimilis’ (‘ Beitr” viii. 310, ‘Stud.’ vii. 377) has the by-form 

toich (Z2, 234), which proves it to be a separate word. Cp. Zimmer 
‘Ztschr.’ xxiv. 

15 b. Root Sux da-dtace-cbar &drKxecOat, orapaTTecOat, 
dat-dvaoe-cbar Exec Oar (Hesych).— Lat. rt. due, 
dux (dtc-is), dico (OLat. ab-douci-t).— Goth. 
tiuha, OHG. ziohu I draw (Germ. ziehe). 

Roscher ‘ Stud.’ iv. 199.— The Greek words which are also brought 
forward in the E.M. to furnish doi-dvé ‘pestle,’ with a derivation 
which is a very doubtful one, have indeed an abnormal reduplication ; 
but the meaning @Axew comes so near to that of the Latin and Teu- 
tonic words, that I bring them forward here as long missed represen- 
tatives of the latter in Greek. Roscher holds ’Odveceds as well to 
belong to the same root. 


16. etxooi(v), Boeot. Fixari, Lacon. Befxati twenty. — Skt. 
vicati, Zd. vigaiti. — Lat. vigintt. — Olt. fiche, gen. 
jichet (for a pre-hist. vicent-as); OCymr. uceint. 

Bopp. ‘Comp. Gr.’ ii. 87, &c. Ahrens ‘ D. Aeol.’ 170, ‘Dor.’ 45: on 
éeixoot and the traces of the F, Knés ‘De digammo’ p. 62. tkavrw* 
cixoow Hes. remarkable on account of the preservation of the nasal in 
the middle of the word. The diphthong in the first syllable seems to — 
be a mistake (Ahrens ‘ Philol.’ xxiii. 202). — The primitive ¢ occurs in 
vicesimus, vicies. — Cp. No. 277. — Benfey ‘ Zahlwort zwei’ 34 f. 

17. Root Fix (ik) e/ko yield, ty-vos trace (?). — Skt. rt. vik 
(vi-nd-k-m7) to separate, winnow (?). Lat. v7-to for 
vic-(t)-to avoid. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ [But cp. Corssen ‘Ital. Sprachk.’ p. 32.] — The connexion 
of vi-ta-re with this root, which is upheld ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 153, I hold to 
be correct, notwithstanding Corssen’s objections and attempts at a 
different derivation (‘ Beitr.’ 18, ‘Nachtr.’ 55). Vitorta= Victoria 
is a certain example of a c driven out before a ¢t.— From the Teu- 
tonic languages, ON. vik ‘move, ‘turn, OHG. wichu ‘give way’ 
(Germ. weiche), and, as Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 127, and Schleicher 
x1. 52 hold (cp. Pott ii”. 339), OHG. wéh-sal exchange (Germ. Wechsel, 
ep. Lat. vi-ces, vic-issim), wéhha ‘week,’ seem to belong to this root. 
The F is proved by clear traces especially in drdecke, trociEo, &c. (Knos 
p- 122) in Homer, by éevée in Alkman (fr. 31 B.°), and by yiEa xyopjoa 
Ahr. ‘D. Aeol.’ p. 171. Cp. Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 129. On the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 155 


x of ixvos cp. p. 502. Zimmer (‘ Suff. a’) supposes a by-form vink to 
account for the absence of the regular shifting in the Teutonic words. 
— Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ iii. 161 connects with Lat. vices the OI. fecht, fect 
‘time(s),’ 2 fect so ‘nune,’ oin-echt ‘semel, fechtn-den ‘once, Cymr. 
gweith, unweith ‘semel’ (Z?. 68; 321). 
18. €-xaré-v hundred, d:a-xéc101, Dor. dia-Katior. — Skt. 
catd-m. — Zd. gate-m. — Lat. centu-m, du-centi. — 
Goth. hund. — Lith. szimta-s, ChSl. stito. —OCymr. 
cant, OIr. cét. 

Bopp ‘Gl, &c. On dsaxarioe Ahr. ‘Dor, 281. — The prefixed ¢ must 
be the numeral &, 

19. Root Fex (ek) éx-éy (st. éx-ov7) willing, €x-7n-7. for 136 
the sake of, €x-7-Ao-s willing, calm. 

Skt. rt. vag (vde-mi) to will, to desire, vd¢-a-s will, 
wish, a-vac-d-s invitus, u¢-ant willing. — Zd. an- 
uc-ant unwilling. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 2, 574, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 132. The F betrays 
itself not only in d-ékv, d-éknte but also in (Hesych.) yéyxadov Fovxor, 
yexaOd éxovoa (Ahr. ‘Dor.’ 53), also in the Homeric et«ndos (Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’ 
1, 146), perhaps for éFéxndos, éFxndos (p. 582). éxav in é, ov« av tus Edowro 
({ 66, cp. H 198), to which Aristarchus’s dA must have referred, is 
a genuine participle ‘even if he wished.’ — d-ék-n-ri: ék==dyax-n-Ti: pay. 
— Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xiii. 157 has shown the probability that wxor be- 
longs here (Skt. vaga ‘ wife’). H. A. Koch (Fleckeisen’s ‘Jahrb.’ 101, 
285) finds traces of the fuller form vowor in Plautus. [Cp. Ritschl 
‘Praef. Plaut. Trin.’ p. lviii.] 

20. éxupd-s father-in-law, éxvpé mother-in-law. 

Skt. cudcura-s socer, cvacrii-s socrus. — Zd. gagura 
(q¢=sv) socer. 

Lat. socer (st. socero), socru-s. 

Goth. svathra (st. svath-ran) socer, svathré socrus. 

ChSlL. svekri socer, svekrtivt or svekry socrus, Lith. 
szészura-s socer. 

Corn. hveger mother-in-law, hvigeren father-in-law 
(Z?. 124, 1068). 

Bopp ‘G1. Pott W. iii. 85, &c. — Skt. initial ¢ stands here as often 
for s (cp. Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 2) so that the primitive form is sva- 
kura-s, the connexion of which with the stem sva ‘one’s own’ is very 
probable. Cp. Pictet ii. 370. Perhaps we may with him and others 
refer -xupo-s to No. 82 and translate the word id.os kvpios. P, gives 
analogous instances for this polite designation of the beaw-pére, — Lat. 


156 BOOK II. 


S0-=svd- as in somnu-s=Skt. svdpna-s (No. 391); the Gk. spor. asp. 
is here, as in the pronoun-stem ¢=sva (No. 601), the representative 
of of. 
21. €dixyn (Arcad.) willow. — Lat. sdélix (st. salic). — OHG. 
salaha. — Ir. sail, Corn. heligen (Z?. 1077). 

Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 129, Pictet i. 194, Fick i’. 796, ‘Corm. Gl. 
Transl.’ p. 154.— The relationship with €u&, &Aicow, which viewed 
only with reference to Greek seems probable, cannot be maintained 
in the face of the kindred words above quoted, since the rt. of €dé is 
Fer (No. 527).— Ir. saad may, according to Irish phonetic laws, be= 
Lat. salva. 


22. Root Fedak €Ax@ I draw, 6AKH, oAKé-s a drawing, a 
line, €Ax-n-6-p6-s a dragging. 
Chl. vlék-q, Lith. velk-t) I draw, valk-s-mas fishing- 
line. 


Schleicher ‘ Kirchensl.’ 135, Pott. W. iii. 281. — To this root belong 
also the Homeric @i& (st. ddx) ‘furrow,’ by the side of aédag, Dor. 
oda, Att. ddof, of which aiAak arose from afAak by vocalization, adox 

137 from dfdo« by expulsion of the F, both being provided with a pro- 
thetic d. Cp. p.579. The form favdaé given by Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ 
x. 371 has no authority. No sufficient explanation has been given of 
the relation of 6AKdés to the Lat. swleus and AS. sulh of like meaning, 
on which Kuhn ‘ Ztgchr.’ ii. 135 may be referred to. — The augment 
of «iAxoy (for é-Fedx-ov) establishes the fF, other traces of which («ara 
édxa N 707) are discussed by Knés p. 183. — Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 46 with 
Leo Meyer compares Lat. lac-io, laqu-eu-s, the stem of which he sup- 
poses to have arisen from vlak with the loss of the v. Whether the 
German locken, however, has anything to do with this root is still 
doubtful. Cp. note to No. 89. 

28. €Axos ulcer. — Lat. ulcus. 

G. J. Voss ‘Etymologicum linguae latinae’ p. 564, Pott W. iii. 285. 
— The Latin word is too frequently used, has developed its meaning in 
too special a line, branching as it does into ulcerare, ulcerosus, &c., for 
it to be suspected of being borrowed from the Greek. — Connexion 
with No, 22 is doubtful. — Other conjectures in Benf. i. 51. 

24. nAE€x-T@p sun, beaming, #Aex-Tpo-y shining metal 
and amber, ’HAéxrpa, “Hrexrpudr. 
Skt. rt. ark to beam, ark-d-s beam, sun, arkés 
olitter. 

P. W.i. p. 419. —The connexion here stated (cp. Fick 1°. 22) 

rests chiefly on the similarity of meaning between the Skt. ark-d-s 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 157 


‘sun,’ also ‘sun-god,’ and the Homeric 7Aék-rwp, which stands some- 
times by itself and sometimes as an epithet of Hyperion. As root 
I take dkk=Skt. arf, the « was developed later, as in ddé£o from root 
ad« (No. 7), the a lengthened into », as in t\c-04-@ i.e. rad-Od-w (root 
ar). Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xi. 431.— Pott (cp. W. iii. 590) ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 357, 
Benf. i. 105, compare Skt. rag ‘to shine’ (No. 121). 

24 b. Root ix éx-ua(d)-s moisture, ékwa-éo-s moist, @k- 
paiv-w I wet, (xua-io-s the wetting (god). — tydép 
blood of the gods. 

Skt. st sifik-a-mi pour, wet, sek-a-s, sek-ana-m 
wetting, sprinkling, sék-tar adspergens, maritus. 
— Zid. hic (hificaiti) to wet. 

OHG. sth-w colo, MHG. sth-e sieve, colum, sth-te 
low [Germ. seicht.] 

Lith. sunk-iv I filter (?), séki-s low ground, sék-ti 
to get low (of water), to fall (?), ChSl. stc-a-ti 
mingere. 

Bopp ‘Gl,’ Pott. i. 234, ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 85, where the names ‘Ipdaduo-s 
(Cretan month) and *Iéiy are referred to this root. — Benfey’s objec- 
tions (i. 439, 11. 354), founded on a supposed F in éxuds, which rely 
only on P 392, are of no weight, because an isolated hiatus of that 
kind occurs in Homer even before a number of words which certainly 
begin with a vowel. — The original sibilant has left behind it here, as 
elsewhere, only a spir. len. Cp. Nos. 208, 518.— On the aspirate of 
ixop, which Clemm ‘Stud.’ i. 45 ff. connects with this rt., cp. p. 685. 

24c. Root Fix tk-w, Dor. exw, ik-vé-o-pat, ik-d-v@ come, 
reach, fx-€-rTn-s, (k-THp, tkeTyH-clo-s coming for 
protection, ix-avé-s coming far enough, sufficient, 
ix-uevo-s coming towards, favourable. 

Skt. vi¢ (vic-a-mi), enter, come, upavic¢ to approach 188 
reverently.—Zd. vig come, Mid. to do homage. 

Bopp. ‘Gl, Benf. i. 350, Gust. Lange ‘ Quaestionum hom. specimen’ 
(Berl. 1863).— The only traces of the F are found in d-tx-ro-s 
‘not to be approached’ (H. in Mere. 346) and in Sappho fr. 109 B*, if 
we there with Schneidewin, and in spite of Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 27, read 
ovkért Fim mpos o€, ovkere Fiéo instead of the more ordinary 7f, and 
thus remove the awkward hiatus. — Perhaps mpo-ik-rn-s ‘ beggar’ (p 352) 
belongs here too, (6 mpoixvodpevos) (Phot. Lex.), also mpotcoopa ‘TI en- 
treat’ (Archil. fr. 130 B*.).— Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ xxi. 49 refuses to 
accept this connexion, mainly because, though Homer often uses the 


158 BOOK II. 


verb he gives us no trace of a F. But this is not the only Homeric 
word which has lost its digamma. To Leo Meyer’s and Fick’s (i°. 4) 
view, that ix-vé-o-wac corresponds to the Skt. a¢ (ag-nd-mi) ‘reach,’ ‘ ob- 
tain’ (cp. No. 424) there are two objections: firstly, the invariable i 
in the face of the Skt. a, to which I know of no parallel in a verb of 
many forms where the vowel is not followed by a double consonant, 
and secondly, the meaning. ikérns, mpoixrns, ikrop have none of them 
anything to do with ‘obtaining,’ while the Skt. vig has certain uses 
that suit these Gk. words. Otherwise, Brugman ‘Stud.’ vil. 212. 
On cikw, ikw cf. ‘The Greek Verb’ pp. 154 and 394. _ 

25. Root kad Kxe-Kad-pévo-s (Pind. ‘Ol’ 4. 27), €-Ké-Kxao-To, 
Ke-kao-pévo-s (Hom.), pres. kaivvcOar distinguish 
oneself, shine, x6a-o-s ornament, arrangement. 

Skt. cad shine, distinguish oneself (¢a-gad-mahé= 
Kexdope0a). 

OCymr. cadr decorus, Arem. kaer formosus, pul- 
cher (Z?. 102). 

P. W. — Fick 1°. 545. Cp. xcadpuos* Sdépu, Aégos, domis Kpnres Hesych. 
It is hard to account for the diphthong in the present. Cp. paiva rt. 
pad. — Perhaps K¢éé-po-s belongs here. 

26. xa0-apé-s pure, kaBaip-w I purify, ca@ap-ci-s puri- 
fication, expiation, KaoraXia. 

Skt. ¢udh, ctindhamt purify, cudhzya-mit become 
pure, cuddhd-s pure. 

Lat. cas-tu-s for cad-tu-s. 

ChSl. éis-t% pure. 

Grimm ‘Gesch” 401, Pott i. 252. Benf. ii. 169 conjectures that 
Skt. gudh comes from a form kvadh. — Cand-idu-s, candor seem to be 
related to castus, but they must be separated from it because of 
candere, candela; for these cp. ‘ Ztschr, 1. 32. 

27. Kai, Cypr. kds. — Skt. Ka. — Lat. que and. 

Pott W. 111.64. The form seems to be the locative of the pronoun- 
stem xa, xo, Which has here kept its demonstrative force (Leskien com- 
pares the ChSl. cé cat ratra), — From the same stem comes re with r 
for x, on which see below p. 487.—On kas cf. ‘Stud.’ vii. 336, x. 221. 

27 b. Root kak kax-6-s bad, kaké-@, kax-tv-w harm, 

spoil, xadx-n badness, oroua-kdxn pain in the 
mouth, kyx-d-s (late) mischievous, abusive. — Lat. 
Cacu-s (?).— Lith. kank-in-ti to torment, kenk-ti 
to injure. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 159 


Fick i°. 516. The Skt. kankara-s compared by Gust. Meyer 
(‘nasale Praesensst.’ 63) is of no authority, and there are difficulties 
about kakkara-s ‘dirty, ‘bad.’ Cp. also Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii. 204. 

28. Kakkn dung, kaxkd-w. — Lat. cac-o. — Lith. szikv. — 
Olr. cace dung, cae gabhar goats’ dung (Ir. Gl. 
1075). 

Benf. 11. 159, Pott W. iii. 140. — The number of its derivatives in 
Latin proves that the word was not borrowed. — Fick i®. 55 adds the 
Skt. caék-an, cak-rt ‘ dung.’ 

29. Kddhapo-s reed, Kaddun stalk, kadaped-s reaper, 
fisherman, Ké\apo. (the name of a place), KéAapis. 
Lat. calamu-s stalk, reed, culmu-s stalk. 
OHG. halam, halm stalk. 
ChSl. slama kadrépn. 
Cymr. kalaf (sing. collect.) calami, stipulae, Arem. 
° coluenn stramen (Z?. 821). 

Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 399, Miklosich ‘Lex.’ 856, Pott W. ii. 1, 180.— 
Lat. cal-a-mu-s: cul-mu-s=OHG. hal-a-m: hal-m. But perhaps the 
former is borrowed (Dietrich ‘Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 83, 38, Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 
275). It is possible that this root may exist in the Lat. cel (cel-su-s, 
ex-cello), Lith. kél-ti ‘lift up’ (No. 68). — Since the Slavonic s points 
to &, it is hard to connect the Skt. kaldma-s ‘a kind of rod,’ ‘ writing 
-reed.’ Fréhde in Bezzenberger’s ‘ Beitr.’ i. 329 thinks, with Fick, 
that it was borrowed from the Greek (?), and connects with the 
parent root the Skt. ¢ard-s ‘reed.’ We must not, however, leave 
Skt. cald-s ‘staff, calaka-s ‘rush,’ out of consideration. — There is no 
proof that the Celtic words were borrowed from Latin. 

29 b. Kkadré-w call (Ké-KAn-Ka, KAn-T6-s), KAN-THP, KAH- 
Top one who calls or summons, kAjj-ol-s call, 
summons, KAn-Tev-@ I summon. 

Lat. calendae, cal-d-re, inter-cald-ris, con-cil-iu-m, 
nomencla-tor. 

OHG. hal-én to call, NHG. holen. 

Olt. cailech gallus. 

Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 401, Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 559, Corssen ‘De Volsco- 
‘rum ling.’ p. 24, Pott W. ii. 1, 187.— On calendae from an obsolete 
calere, Varro L. L. vi. 27 ‘primi dies mensium nominati ab eo quod 
his diebus calantur eius mensis Nonae, quintanae an septimanae sint 
futurae.’ The Romans themselves (Quintilian vi. 1, 33) connected 
classis with this same calare, which, however, as Pott has seen (i+. 214, 


160 BOOK II. 


ii”. 376) by its ss proves that it could not possibly have come directly 
from the root cal, cla by addition of the Suffix tz. The word is either 
(cp. bassis) borrowed from what we may suppose to have been the 
Doric form of the Gk. kdjous, i.e. KAdois (Mommsen ‘ Rom. Gesch.’ i’. 
81: but he now derives it. from calare ‘ R. G.’ 1°. 90) or, as Corssen 1”. 
496 supposes, arose from an intermediate verbal stem cla-t, like fassio 
from fa-t. In any case, classis means ‘a mustering,’ ‘a summons,’ 
(Dion. Halic. ‘ Antiq.’ iv. 18). The etymon may still be discerned in 
classicum (Quint. i. 6, 33). — Kéd-o-par, Ked-ed-o with the prominent 

140 meaning ‘urge on’ (cp. No. 48) I put aside, and still more decidedly 
calu-mn-ia, which cannot be separated from calv-or.— It is certain 
though that cld-mor and clad-méare are formations from the same 
root (Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 241).— Ir. catlech for a pre-historic calicos, 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 310. 


30. xadtd hut, store-room, bird-cage, Kxadid-s, Kadid-s 
(st. kadvad) cottage, dim. KaAtdio-v. 
Lat. cella. 


Kuhn in Weber’s ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 360. — ‘ Ind. lect. Kiliens. aest. 
a. 1856’ p. iv, where the form and meaning of the words are discussed. 
The long « needs further investigation (first short in Theocr. 29. 12 
kadiav).—-In opposition to my view that Lat. cella is a diminutive 
form for cel-ula, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 454 holds that cella stands for 
celia. — He also connects the Low Germ. fille, in Holstein hilgen 
‘place over the cow-stalls, where hay and the like are stored,’ for 
which there is also a form hilde. — The rt. is cad, Lat. oc-cul-e-re, cél- 
are (cp. domi-cil-iu-m), OHG. hél-an, OIr. celim ‘celo, the same rt. 
from which comes also the Goth. halja, OHG. hella ‘hell’ — Cp. 
Déoderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 2109, Pott. W. i. 1. 196. — Since the & of this rt. 
kal appears as gu in the OLat. oc-quoltod, the Skt. cala ‘house,’ 
‘stable,’ cannot belong here, and we cannot be sure about the Skt. 
khala-s ‘threshing-floor.” The Ch8l. Alé-t% déyua, rayciov agrees better 
with ki-cia. The Skt. kuldja-m ‘ basket-work,’ ‘nest,’ which Fick i’, 
527 connects here, shows a different meaning. 


31. xado-s beautiful, comp. KaddA-iwy, KddAXos, KaddAovy 
beauty, kadAvv-@ I adorn, clean. 
Skt. kal-ja-s healthy, pleasant, kaljana-s beautiful, 
striking. 
Goth. hail-s sound, healthy. 
ChSl. cé/é% totus, sanus. 
Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 101.— Assimilation of 77 to AA occurs in 
the comp. and superl. and also in «dAdos, and in compounds with 
kadXe-, also in the Dorian ca\Ad=«Kados Apoll. ‘De adv.’ 565, 14 (ep. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 161 


Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 102, Lobeck ‘Path. El’ i. 468). The length of the a 
in the earlier language is also a remnant of the double consonant. — 
Benfey’s connexion of the word with Skt. Karu-s ‘ pleasant,’ ‘ charming’ 
(‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 115), which is approved of by Pott ii?. 723, 828, is less 
consistent with xaddvvev, kdddvytpo-v ‘broom,’ where the idea of 
cleaning is apparent (xdA\orov vdwp © 158, Kaddtppdn). This idea is 
closely connected with Germ. heid. — Goth. hail-s arose from hal-ja-s as 
xelpov did from xep-rov (Scherer 472). Cp. No. 74. — Bréal ‘Mém.’ ii. 
381 finds an Italian representative of the same root in the Lat. cali-du-s, 
Aevxoperoros (‘ Gloss. Philox.’ ep. Isidor. ‘ Orig.’ xii. 1, 52). In that case 
the primary meaning would have been ‘clear. He also compares the 
Umbr. buf caleduf, which he interprets to be boves albos. 


3la. kapdpa vault, covered waggon.—Skt. rt. kmar to 
be crooked, Zd. kamara vault, girdle.—Lat. ca- 
muru-s bent inwards. 


Benf. 11. 283, Pictet ii. 247, Pott W. 1. 503. — Here belongs kpéd-e- 
Opo-v (cp. Oip-e-rpo-v), which Pamphilos according to Herodian (‘ Et. M.’ 
521, 29) marked as a gloss with the explanation cnpaiver tas dSoxods 
‘timber-work’ (cp. M. Schmidt ad Hes. i. 496). The Homeric 141 
pedadpo-y has often been compared with it. Fick 1°. 519 compares Zd., 
kameredha ‘head, ‘skull,’ where the connexion would lie in the 
meaning ‘vault.’ He assumes a rt. kam ‘arch oneself, from which he 
- derives xdp-wvo-s and the Goth. him-in-a-s, OSax. him-il. — Lat. camera 
(also camara) must, in spite of camurus, have been borrowed from the 
Greek. 

31 b. kdun-n caterpillar. Skt. kap-and worm, cater- 
pillar. 

P.W.— The root is doubtful, for while we are tempted to compare 
it with Gk. kayr-r-«, we cannot thus arrive at an explanation of the 


Skt. word, since Skt. Lamp ‘to tremble’ can hardly be compared with 
the Gk. word. Cp. however Fick 1°. 519. 


32. Root kav xavagéw I sound, kavayy noise, kavayxns 

sounding, xévaBo-s noise. 

Skt. san-kan-t an ornament with a little bell on it, 
kin-kint a little bell, kan, kvan to ring, sound. 

Lat. can-o, can-tu-s, can-oru-s. 

Olr. canaid canit, for-chun for-chanim doceo, prae- 
cipio, tair-chechuin praedixit, for-cital doctrina. 

Corn. cheniat cantor. 


Benf. ii. 63, Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 13. — kdva-Bo-s with 
M 


162 BOOK II. 


suffix Bo = Skt. va (Pictet ‘ Zitschr.’ v. 323). — That xv-xv-0-s as well— 
reduplicated like x’-«h-o-s—comes from this root and gets its name 
from the sound it makes, like the OHG. svan (Skt. svan ‘sonare’), 
and consequently corresponds, as far as its root goes, to the Goth. 
hana, OHG. huon (Grimm ‘Gr.’ ii. 989), seems to me probable in 
spite of the different views of Férstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iil. 52 («d-xv-o-s = 
ci-con-ia) and Pictet i. 391 (= Skt. koka-s ‘ cuckoo,’ ‘ goose,’ Pers. evtcah 
‘swan.’ — The authorities for the Keltic words may be found in Z’. 
428, 448, 800, 839. 


33. kdvvaBi-s hemp. — Skt. ¢and-s cannabis. — ONorse 
hanp-r, OHG. hanf. — ChSl. konoplja. 


Grimm, ‘Gesch.’ 407, Bopp ‘GI.,’ Pictet i. 316, who holds the Skt. 
kanapa-s ‘a kind of lance’ to be also related, as being manufactured 
from the hemp-stalk. — Kuhn ‘Beitr,’ ii. 382. Both consider the Greek 
word borrowed from the East, and the Teutonic one from the Lat. 
cannabi-s, which certainly made its way from thence. The Slavonic 
word must have come from the Teutonic. — Hehn ‘ Kulturpflanzen 
und Hausthiere*’ 168 shows it to be probable that both plant and 
name came from the Hast (cf. Hdt. iv. 74). 


34. Root katt ké-n handle. — Lat. cap cap-ulu-m, cap-t-0, — 


cap-ax, — Goth. hafja (Germ. hebe) I lift, OS. haft 
captus, MHG. haft vinculum, fefte handle, haft. 
— Oly. cacht servus. 

Benf. ii. 158, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 400.— In the three words kom, 
capulum, Heft (cp. ka8n) the relationship is evident; the further de- 
velopement of the meaning in cap-io and haf-ja has taken a separate 
course of its own. Lat. capi-s (st. capid) ‘bowl with a handle’ = 
Umbr. kapir (Aufr. and Kirchh. ii. 409) is compared with the Greek 
xari0n, but this word appears from Xen. ‘ Anab.’ i. 5, 6, to be Persian. 
Froedhe ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 452 connects the former with No. 109.—xdrrew 
‘eat,’ kan ‘crib,’ ought perhaps, as Van. thinks, to be connected with 
this root. — On the Ir. cacht cf. Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ vi. 16. 

35. Kdm-ndo-s peddler, fem. xamndi-s, kamnreto hawk 
wares, kamnAcia retail trade, peddling. 
Lat. caup-o peddler, innkeeper, cdp-a bar-maid, caup- 
Ona inn, cauponar. 
ChSl. kupiti buy, kuptct merchant. 
Benf. ii. 158, Schleicher ‘ChSIl.’ 96.— Goth. kaupdn, OHG. 


koufan, koufén must be held to be borrowed, on account of the irregu- 
larity of letter change. Corssen i”. 352 takes No. 34 as the root, and 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 163 


refers to the fundamental meaning of em-ere. — On the relation of Lat. 
au to Gk. a cp. also Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 397. 


36. Root kan xaz-v-w breathe forth, ce-xad-n-és gasping, 
panting, ¢y-Kdm-r-e. Hesych. éxmvei, xam-vd-s 
smoke, xo7-po-s dung. 

Skt. kap-ts, kapi-ld-s incense (?). 

Lat. vap-or (for cvap-or) vapour, fragrance, vapor- 
are to exhale vapour, vap-idu-s evaporated, flat, 
vappa flat wine. 

Goth. hvap-ja I choke (?). 

Lith. kvdp-a-s breath, fragrance, evaporation, kvep-it 
breathe, smell, kvépalat perfume, kvépoju pant. — 
Bohem. éopet smoke, soot, ChSl. kop-r% anethum. 


The root is kvap, the form in which it occurs in Lith. (cp. p. 114), 
the fundamental meaning ‘breathe forth’ (cp. Hes. xéxnpe réOvyxe), 
whence the meanings ‘ breathe’ (Hes. xaros Wuy7n mvedua), ‘ evaporate,’ 
‘smoke,’ ‘smell,’ are developed. Precisely similar changes are to be 
found in the case of the rt. du = dha (No. 320). Pott 1. 205. — The 
query is put to the Ind. words on account of the variety of their other 
meanings, to the Goth. because of the final letter of the stem. — Here 
would belong Karmavets either as the ‘snorter’ (Baxxetov éerémve 
Soph. ‘ Antig.’ 136), cp. Passow ‘ Philol.’ xx. 606, or as ‘the man of 
smoke and fire.’ Pott ‘Ztschr.’ vil. 324 explains the word by kamdvy 
‘ chariot.’ 


37. kd7-po-s boar, also Kdmpio-s, Kampdw, Kampifo am 
rank, lustful, campia the ovary of the sow. 
Lat. Umbr. caper (st. capro) he-goat, capra_ she- 
goat. 
ONorse hafr, AS. hdfar buck. 
ChSl. vepri boar. 


Grimm. ‘ Gesch.’ 35, 36, Pott i!. 256, who gives No. 36 as the root, 
—‘the snorter,’ ‘the stinker,’ Pictet (i. 348) who with less probability 
takes as base the root found in the Skt. Kap-ald-s active. Otherwise 
Fick i°. 519. — Cp. also Hesych. xdmpa alé Tuppnvoi. — Lat. aper = AS. 
eofor, OHG. ebar belongs elsewhere (Corssen ‘Nachtr.’ 32, cp. 
‘Studien’ i. 260). 


38. kdpa (st. Kpa-at, Kapyn-ar), Kdép, Kd&py-vo-v head, 
képon head, temples. 
M 2 


164 BOOK II. 


Skt. ¢fra-s (for karas), girsh-d-m, Zd. cara, gdranh 
head. 


Lat. cere-bru-m, cer-n-uu-s. 


148° Bopp‘GL,’ Pott W. ii.i. 141. Fick 1°. 547. — The rare word xdpavos 
‘head,’ ‘ruler,’ (Xen. ‘ Hellen.’ i. 4, 3) and Aeschylus’s xapavdo ‘ I com- 
plete’ (cp. xopypde), and also xopy-py ‘summit,’ KépiOo-s (= ’Edupa 
‘watch-tower’) belong here, perhaps xpj-vy (Aeol. kpdvva) the ‘ caput 
fontis,’ whence Kpavvoy, E. Curtius ‘Gr. Quellen-Inschriften’ p. 2 
compares mod.Gk. xepaddpiov, Forstemann after Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xili, 229 OHG. houbit. — Cere-bru-m is, according to Fick and Brug- 
man, ‘Stud.’ ix. 393, for ceres-ru-m. xdpo-n formed, except as to 
gender, like the Skt. ¢irsh-d-m is also a derivative from karas. On this 
word and on xéppn see ‘ Stud.’ i. 248, on cernuu-s Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 
342. — The Goth. hvair-n-et xpaviov, OHG. hirni the hv (= k) shows 
not to be related. They belong to xpdvos ‘helmet,’ properly, ‘ hollow- 
ing,’ and xpavioy ‘ skull’ (cp. xépvos ‘ dish,’ Fick 1°. 523). 
39. Stem kapd, K7p, Kap, kapd-ia, kpad-in heart. 
Skt. Ard (for hard), h’d-aja-m heart. Zd. zared- 
haya heart (?). 

Lat. cor (st. cord) dim. cor-culu-m, cord-atus, vé-cors. 

Goth. hatrt-d (st. hatrtan), OHG. hérzd. 

Lith. szird-i-s, ChSl. sriid-t-ce heart. 

Olr. eride cor (Z?. 230). 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ ‘Accentuationssystem ’ 232, Schleicher ‘Kirchensl.’ 98.— 
The fundamental form is kard, which I refer to the rt. xpad ‘swing,’ 
‘start’ (No. 71); the initial letter in Skt. may perhaps be explained by 
an intermediate form khard.— The Epic «jp (cp. Skt. hardi by-form 
of Ard Grassmann, 661) we must not with Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 369 
derive from the later xéap: n is only a lengthening of the a after the 
loss of the 6. The tragic and lyric form «éap for xeapd seems to have 

_ arisen by a peculiar modification from xepd: ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 82. Teutonic 
h, Lith. sz, Slav. s, consistently point to an original initial £.— Lat. 
Card-ea, Carn-a dea viscerum Preller ‘Rom. Myth.’ 604. 


40. kapk-ivo-s crab, kapxivd-s a sort of crab. 
Skt. kark-d-s, kark-i-s, kark-ata-s, kark-ata-ka-s crab. 
Lat. canc-er (st. cancro). 
Bohem. rak crab. 


Pott W. ii. 1, 155, Bopp ‘GL.’ Forstemann ‘Ztschr.’ iii. 52, Fick 
1°. 46.— kapi-s too (st. kapid) ‘ sea-crab’ seems related and only to lack 
the second x. The relation of the st. cancro to the assumed form 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 165 


kapko (cp. kdpxac’ kapxivot Sixehot Hesych.), from which again xapk-ivo-s 
is formed by a suffix often occurring (cp. No. 171) in the case of 
names of animals, has been variously explained. — Diintzer ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xiii. 9, Benfey ‘Or. u. Occ.’ ii. 384, are perhaps right in supposing re- 
duplication to have happened; the former, who gives the st. kar as 
the base, adduces dév-dpe-ov (No. 275). Cp. Brugman ‘ Stud.’ viii. 283. 
Havet ‘Mem.’ iii. 196 assumes that cancro came by metathesis from 
karkno. Pictet i. 517 is no doubt right in supposing connexion with 
the Skt. har-kar-a-s ‘hard’ (No. 42 b). 

41, The connexion which I formerly maintained of the rt. kapz, xpar, 
KapT-d\yio-s, Kpaurvd-s * swift,’ with Teutonic or Slavonic words is un- 
tenable, for the Goth. hlawp-an shows a divergence in both its vowel 
and its final consonant, the ChSl. krép-v, according to Joh. Schmidt 144 
‘Vocal.’ 11. 492, differs in meaning, if we may judge from that which 
the word has in most of the Slavonic languages. 

42. kap7r6-s fruit, kdép7r-iuo-s fruitful, kap7r6-w bear fruit, 
Kpem-.o-v sickle. 
Lat. rt. carp, carp-o, carp-ti-m, carp-tor. 
AS. hearf-est autumn, harvest, OHG. herb-ist autumn 
(Germ. Herbst). 
Lith. kerp-% I cut, shear, dt-karp-ai chip. 

Grimm. ‘ Gesch.’ 400.— Since J so often takes the place of 7, perhaps 
Skt. kalp-aka-s ‘barber, kalp-ana-m ‘ cutting’ (cp. Skt. krp-dna-s 
‘sword’), may be compared here. Cp. No. 332. — Pollux x. 128 
mentions kpomov as an old synonym for dpémravoy in Pherekydes, whence 
no doubt the Att. deme Kpomia Kponida. As regards the sound 
Ké-xpo may belong here (cp. xé-kpa&), and for the son of "Epix@duos 
(‘ Good-land’) ‘ Much-crop ’ (Vielschnitt) would not be an unsuitable 
name. — as in kom rt. xa (No. 34). — Fick ii*. 55 gives a somewhat 
different account of the word. 

42a. képt-aro-s basket, xpot-évn excrescence on trees, 
kAOO-@ spin, KA@O-es, KAwO-o. 
Skt. rt. krat (kr-nd-t-mi) twist the thread, spin. 
Lat. crdt-e-s (st. crati) wicker-work, cartilago, 
gristle, crassu-s. 
Goth. haurd-s door, OHG. hurt wicker-work, hurdle. 
Chsl. krat-% tortus. 

Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ i. 122, Fick i?. 525, Van. 147. On kdpraddor, 
a by-form of kdprados, Hesych. says 76 mAexrov adyyetov €v Tois dYapruriKois. 
The rest of the Gk. forms may be explained through metathesis, 
dulling of the vowels, and aspiration (cp. p. 498). 


166 BOOK It. 


42b. kép-vo-y nut, kernel, kapva nut-tree. — Skt. kdr- 
aka-s cocoa-nut, kar-anka-s cocoa-nut shell, skull. 
—Lat. carina nut-shell, shell, keel [ep. Eng. hull.] 
— Corn. crogen concha, skull (Z?. 1074). 


Benf. ii. 154, Pictet i. 131, Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ xv. 314, Hehn', 
p. 192. With the latter I regard kar as the root, which underlies 
many words with the common notion of hardness. These words we 
must now divide into two groups, those with & (4h) and those with 
k (¢). To the first group belongs kdp-kap-o1 (Hes.) = Skt. har-kar-a-s 
(cp. xap-xapo-s) ‘hard,’ as a subst. ‘ bone,’ ‘hammer,’ ‘ pea-stone,’ clearly 
related in the last-mentioned use to ¢t-cer kpid-s dpoftaios, ‘ chick-pea,’ 
and xéy-xpo-s ; further the Skt. khara-s ‘ hard, ‘rough,’ ‘sharp, Skt. 
kdraka-s, in the sense of hail, cp. Engl. hazlstone. On the other hand 
karanka-s, used for ‘skull’ reminds us of kpaviov (No. 38).  xpd-vos 
‘helmet’ too, and kpav-ad-s ‘ rocky,’ ‘ rugged,’ ‘ steep,’ kparai-hew-s ‘ with 
hard stones,’ xparat-medov oddas ~ 46 and Goth. hardu-s, OHG. harti 
are perhaps to be regarded as derived from the same root. We made 
the same conjecture for xap-x-ivo-s No. 40. To the second group be- 
long Skt. carka-ra ‘flint,’ ‘ potsherd,’ kpédxn, KpoxdAn ‘ flint,’ along with 
the Lat. calw, calculu-s, and the Goth. hallus rérpa. k and & are here 

145 very closely connected. — Otherwise Corssen 1”. 516. — From Celtic we 
get also the related words Cymr. carrec ‘lapis,’ ‘rupes, Ir. carrie ; 
Cymr. calet ‘durus, Ir. calad ; Ir. cloch ‘stone.’ 


43. kdol-s brother. — AS. Hise man (?). 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 401. In Eurip. also 7 xdous ‘sister’ occurs. That 
kagiyvyntos like ddeApds denoted only a brother born of the same mother 
is proved by kxaciyvnroy kat dratpoy in A 257. 


44. Root kav, KkaF ka-i-w, kdé-w burn, xad-ya heat, xav- 
a-7Tnpo-s burning, xn-édn-s fragrant. 
Skt. cona-s (for kau-na-s) flame-coloured. 


The earlier explanations of xat-o Pott i’. 272 (otherwise ii”. 343), 
Benfey i. 33, from Skt. gush ‘to dry,’ are mistaken. Rather ¢u-sh, 
cu-bh, gu-K ‘shine,’ Zd. gue ‘ burn,’ ‘ kindle,’ seem to be expansions of 
a rt. ku, ‘burn,’ ‘ shine,’ from which, too, comes co-na-s. All compari- 
sons of words from other languages are open to doubt. Cp. Fick i*. 61. 


45. Stem ket xKel-pai lie, xoi-rn bed, Kot-ud-w put to bed, 
put to sleep, x-as fleece (?). 
Skt. cz lie, ¢@-t@, Zd. ca-été=xei-rat, ¢aj-ana-m bed. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Pott W. 1. 542, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 401, Fick i°. 550. — All 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 167 


the other words which I formerly compared are doubtful. Since &, ¢ 
never produces a subsequent v, the Lat. qué-é-s is out of the question. 
The / in the ChSl. po-oj ‘rest’ also makes it doubtful, and for the 
same reason we must omit the Lith. kéma-s ‘courtyard,’ ‘village,’ 
kaim-yna-s ‘neighbour, which cannot be separated from the Goth. 
haim-s, and the synonymous xopn (for *kdun, as the Aeol. Kvyn, Cumae, 
shows). Finally, though the Lat. civé-s = Osc. kev-s comes in sound 
near to the Skt. céva-s ‘ trusty,’ Goth. heiva-frauja ‘lord of the house,’ 
OHG. hiwo ‘ wife,’ still the derivation from the rt. 42 is not clear. 
The words for ‘ village,’ ‘ settlement’ are derived by Fick i°. 803 from 
a rt. ski, which is to be seen in kri-oc-s and the Skt. kshé-mas ‘ inhabit- 
able,’ ‘ comfortable.’ 


45 b. Kel-w, Ke-a¢-@ split, xai-ara clefts in the ground, 
Ké-ap-vo-v axe. — Skt. rt. Kha (Khja-mi) cut off, 
cut up. — Lat. de-sci-sc-o, sci-o. — Ir. scian knife, 
Cymr. ysgien. 

The root has lost in Gk. and Skt. an initial s which the Lat. has 
kept. We may assume it to be oxe, oxa, so that Skt. Kh-jami has 
the same relation to ke-i-w, as d-j-d-mi has to 8at-o, ‘I divide’ 
(No. 256), and this root may be compared with ced, xd (No. 294). — 
ev-kéato-s € 60, Theokr. 25, 248, ‘easily split,’ has the same relation to 
kedfo that Oavpara epya has to Oavuato. —From the Laconian word 
katara Lacedaemon gets the epithet kaerdeooa (6 1), as Zenodotus read 
the line, according to Eustathius, poxpots dad cepav exyovoa (E. 
Curtius ‘ Peloponnesos’ ii. 308). Hence kardda-s=Bdpabpov. Fick ii°. 
265 makes it very probable that xj-ro-s ‘gulf’ (cp. peyaxyrns), ‘sea 
monster,’ also belongs to these words, by bringing forward the Lat. 
squa-tu-s, squa-ti-na ‘shark.’ — The meaning of de-sci-sc-o (properly 
‘T tear myself away’) has the same relation to that of keio that oxid- 
va-wa has to cyifw. On scio cp. above, p. 110. — xé-ap-vo-v has a double 
suffix like oxé-ap-vo-v, Lat. cav-er-na. — Also ke-cxi-o-v ‘ tow’ (what is 146 
separated from flax), xo-cxi-vo-y with an 2- sound like sei-o, belong here. 
— Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xvi. 207 derives Lat. sec-a-re, OHG. sah-s ‘ knife,’ 
and Lat. saxu-m from the rt. ska, which seems to occur in Zend as 
well (vi-skd@ ‘decide’ Justi), and certainly sak: ska=man: mna= 
ren: tun. —The Skt. kas (‘to split,’ ‘open,’) is compared with keio by 
Delbriick ‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 80. — Gust. Meyer ‘Beitrige’i. 82 starts from 
art. ski. In that case, xjros and other words would have to be kept 
apart.— The Celtic words (Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 312) seem to contain the 
rt. ski (primary from *sci-and). 


46. xed-avd-s, KeAal-vedys black, xnAi-s stain. 
Skt. kal-anka-s stain, kdla-s black, stain. 


168 BOOK Il. 


Lat. squal-or, squal-idu-s. 
ChSl. kal-% lutum. 


BODO MATL; FOGt Ws 4, 7L0os uo ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 14. —_ We may 
assume the root to be skal, from which perhaps also the Skt. khalug 
‘darkness’ comes, on which however see the P.W. In no case can 
this word be compared directly with cdligo ; caligo points rather to 
an adjective stem *cdlo (=:Skt. st. kala), to which it is related as rubigo 
(for rubrigo) to rubro (ruber), ep. knr-hvn’ péhawa Hes. — On kedai-vedns, 
i. e. keAawo-vedrs, Doderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 2156. — The meanings ‘ black’ and 
‘stain’ meet also in péAas and its related words (No. 551). Pho- 
netically the two words have nothing in common. 


47. Kéd-ev-O0-s way, Hom. pl. xéAevOa, a-xdAovbo-s com- 
panion. — Lat. calli-s path. — Lith. kélia-s way, 
keliduju I travel. 


Benf. 11. 319, whose conjecture as to the root I do not share. — 
Bopp ‘Gl. s.v. Kar. The Gk. form points to a derived form xedevo, 
whose identity with cededw ‘command’ is not probable. immo-xéevbo-s 


II 126, an epithet of Patroklus, must come from a verb-stem keAevO 
‘go’ with affixed 6. 


48. Root Ked KéA-n-s (st. KeAnT) a racer, KeAnTi¢m Tun @ 
race, Bov-KoA-o-s cattle driver. 
Skt. kal (kalaéjami) urge on. 
Lat. cel-er, Celeres, celeritd-s, cel-ox yacht. 

Pott W. 1. 1, 175, who supposes a different root; that here pro- 
posed is established by P. W. 11. p. 150, where kaldjamz is mentioned 
as especially used of horses (‘at full speed’). I am not quite certain 
whether «dévo-s and pro-cella are to be brought under this head 
(Corssen ii. 158); pro-cella may perhaps be connected with the stem 
of percellere, perhaps with kéddXo, dxéAXo ‘run ashore,’ which on their 
side remind us of kad 3 in P.W. ii. 151.—Otherwise Bopp ‘G1.’ s. v, kad. 
— Several related Gk. words resemble the Skt. rt. Kar ‘go’ in sound, 
especially xiy-kh-o-s ‘a water-bird’ with quickly moving tail (also 
kiy-kaho-s), and xKidd-ovpo-s ‘wagtail’ resemble the Skt. Kard-s ‘move- 
able’ and (subst.) ‘ wagtail,’ mota-cilla. It has also been attempted 


to connect col-o with these words. Cp. Benfey ‘Ztschr.’ viii. 92, 
Pictet 1412, Hick VEDA 


49, Keved-s, Keivd-s, Kevd-s empty, kevedy the flank. 
Skt. ¢unjd-s empty, desolate. 
147. Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott i. 53, Benf. u. 165. Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 164. 
— The Greek forms, to which may be added a doubtful Aeol. xévyo-s 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 169 


(Ahr. ‘Aeol.’ 55), point to the st. «feo, Skt. ciinjd-s to the st. 
kvanja. 


50. xépas horn (st. kepa-r), Kkepad-s horned, xpud-s 

ram (2). 

Lat. cornu, cervu-s. 

Goth. haurn horn, OHG. hrind ox, hiruz, AS. heorot 
stag. [Germ. Hirsch, Eng. hart.| | 

Ir., Cymr. and Corn. corn horn; Ir. cornaire horn- 
blower; Corn. cherniat cornicen; Cymr. karu nom. 
pl. keyru cervi (Z?. 282). 

Bopp ‘Gl’ s. v. griga, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 501, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 
400.— The stag then and the ox get their names from their horns. 
kepad-s, T 24, epithet of the stag, must be for xepafd-s, i.e. Kepacfo-s, 
whence (Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 54) cervus, which points to a shorter form than 
cornu, which form has survived in xépas. Along with Lat. cornu go 
kdpvos, perhaps for xapyf-o-s, Bdoxnpa mpdBarov (Hesych.), and kdprny rnv 
Bovy Kpyres, perhaps, inasmuch as kdpvos probably only stood for the 
ram, ‘ horned beast,’ perhaps too proper names like Kapvdotov, ‘AXuxap- 
vaooos ‘ Little sea horn’ (?). On ’ArcdA@v Kapveios cp. Preller ii”. 198, 
Welcker ‘Gotterl. i. 471, where other forms that belong to this stem 
are discussed. —If the Zd. grva ‘nail,’ ‘horn,’ grva-ra ‘horned,’ belong 
here, this will prevent us comparing the Lith. karve ‘ox,’ ChSl. hrava 
‘cow’ (Fick i*. 547). — Ir. corn, etc. are proved to be genuine Celtic 
by the gloss. kdpvov rév oddmeyya Taddrar (Hesych.). 

D1. Kép-aco-s cherry tree, Kpd-vo-s, Kpdvo-v, Kpdv-era 
cornel-tree. 

Lat. cornu-s cornel-tree, cornu-m cornel-berry. 
ChSl. érésinja cherry. 

Benf. 11. 174. — Pott and Rédiger ‘ Kurdische Studien,’ ‘ Ztschr. f. 
Kunde des Morgenl.’ vii. 108, give connected words from other 
sources. Pictet i. 244.— According to Hehn’*, p. 351, the cherry-tree 
gets its name from the horny hardness of its wood, accordingly from 
képas (No. 50). 

52. Kepd-wv Spartan hero of cooks. — Skt. rt. ¢rd, gir 
cook, grt mingle, mix, @-¢ir milk mixed with 
Soma-juice. 

Pott W. i. 13, Benf. ii. 167, P. W. under ¢gri 2. —It is probable that 
Képauo-s terra coctilis is connected with this root.  xép-vos ‘dish’ is 
compared by Fick i°. 44 with xpa-vos, by Joh. Schmidt ‘Voce.’ 11. 493, 
with the ON. hverna ‘basin,’ and other words. Bopp ‘Gl. s. v. ¢ra, 


170 BOOK II. 


Pictet ii. 260, Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xv. 372, compare other words: they 

are right in holding the rt. xpa (kpa-rnp), xepdv-vyvpe ‘mix,’ to be 

related. Corssen 1%. 443.— Perhaps this is the root of Olr. cwirm, 

gen. corma, Corn. coruf, Cymr. cwrw, OBrit. Kcodppi, cépya ‘ beer’ 

(‘ Auslautsges.’.227, ‘ Beitr.’ vill. 437). To the ON. hver-r ‘kettle’ 

(cp. Ved. Karé ‘kettle,’ ‘ pot’), belongs the Ir. cotre ‘ kettle,’ Cymr. 
pair, Corn. per ‘lebes,’ cp. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 44. 

53. Root kep xef/pm consume, shear, xop-pd-s log, Kép-pa 

a small slice, small coin, xovpdé shearing, Kouvpev-s 

148 shearer, kepai¢m demolish, knpaivm damage, am in 

need, x#p destruction. 

Skt. kr-na-mi, ky-no-mi injure, kill, kar-t (krnt-a-mi) 
cut, split, kart-rz, kart-ant shears. — Zd. kar cut, 
kareta knife. 

Lat. cur-tu-s, Sabin. curt-s lance (2). 

Goth. hatr-u-s, OS. hér-u, ON. hidr-r pdx apa, eardo. 

Pott W. 1. 1, 157, Corssen 17. 350, Fick 1°. 238. The OHG. skir-u 
‘shear, OI. coscarad ‘ destruere, coscéra ‘destruet’ (Z?. 452) point 
to skar as the original form of the root. An expansion of kar: 
gives the Skt. 4ar-¢ which resembles the Lith. hertz ‘hew,’ ChSl. 
krati-kit ‘short,’ perhaps too in cort-ex (cp. Skt. kft-ti-s ‘skin,’ ‘bark of a 
kind of birch,’ Lith. harnd ‘bast’), and xépr-opo-s (Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ 
vi. 15). d-Kepoe-Kduns ‘with unshorn hair,’ formed like repoé-rodt-s, can 
have come just as well from xep as from xepr. The Skt. ernd-mi 
‘break,’ belongs to xAdw ‘break.’ — The metaphorical meaning ‘harm,’ 
‘hurt,’ is remarkable, not only in the Skt. har ‘kill,’ hara-s ‘ death- 
blow,’ but also in xepaifw (from xepafo ?), knpaive, Knp, axnpvos ‘ unhurt,’ 
Kdp-vn’ (nula, avrd-kapvo-s* avro¢nuios Hesych., and in the Lat. car-é-re, 
‘Greek Verb’ p. 497, perhaps too in car-ind-re ‘abuse’ (cp. Cymr. 
keryd ‘reprehensio,’ OlIr. cairigedar ‘reprehendit’ Z?. 82; 439). — 
kovpo-s, koup-n, Att. xépn and kovpid-.o-s, the latter meaning ‘bridal,’ 
I also tried to prove related to this root, and explicable by the custom 
of cutting the hair at the time of puberty and before marriage, 
‘Studien’ i. 1, 250. But xopfa has since been discovered on an ap- 
parently Thessalian inscription, and this seems to be the primary 
form of xovpy (Frankel ‘ Archaeol. Ztg.’ 1876, 30 ff.). 


54. kepadry head (xéBAn, keBdAn), Képado-s, keharaio-s. 
Skt. kapala-s, kapala-m shell, potsherd, skull. 
Lat. cap-ut, cap-it-ali-s, Cap-it-dliu-m. 
Goth. haub-ith head (Germ. Haupt), AS. hedfod. 
Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 400. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 137 only allows 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. Hit 


the relationship of kapadlas and caput. But as there are undeniable 
cases of Gk. tenues being aspirated, cepadn cannot be separated from 
caput, to which it is related, as AS. heafola, hafela is to the synony- 
mous hedfod. The Ir. capat is most probably borrowed from the Lat. 
caput (Pictet 1. 307). Otherwise Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 128, 133. 
xeBdy in Alexandrian poets, xe8dAy in Hesych., cp. orpdBido-s from the 
rt. orpep. — The meaning ‘shell,’ ‘potsherd’ is doubtless the primitive 
one and hence connexion with rt. cam (No. 34) is probable. Cp. No. 
‘38. Also the Skt. Aharpara-s, which Fick! 183 compared with xadmn, 
kadris ‘pitcher,’ and the Lat. calpar ‘cask,’ means ‘potsherd’ and 
‘skull,’ as does the vulgar-Lat. testa. [Cp. ‘Owens College Essays’ 
p. 314].— Hehn® p. 174 is doubtless right in placing here kdm-va" 
oxdpoda Kepuynra (Hesych.) and Lat. cepe (caepa capitata—cp. Germ. 
Kopflauch ‘head-leek’), a remarkable testimony to the existence of a 
min the Gk. word. 
55. «jdo-v missile.—Skt. calja-m arrow-head. 

Benf. 1. 175, Pott W. ii. 1, 202.— kjdov, with the meaning of 
‘missile’ (the only one in Homer and Hesiod), is quite a distinct 
word from xadov (kaumtAa kata Hes. ‘Op.’ 427). The missiles of 149 
Apollo and Zeus can hardly be called ‘timbers.’ Pindar too (‘ Pyth.’ 
i. 12) would not have called his songs xjAa dapovev if so vulgar a 
meaning had made itself felt in the word. After the fashion of the 
grammarians’ petty explanations the lexicons persist in giving 
the meaning ‘ wooden shaft, hence arrow itself. — The root is to be 
found perhaps in Lat. cedlere ‘strike,’ ‘hit,’ Lith. kdl-ti ‘to forge.’ — 
Cp. No. 534. 

56. xnzro-s garden. — OHG. hof. 

Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 401, Pott i?. 141, 112.280. According to him and 
Pictet ii. 266 oxam ‘dig’ is the root (No. 109), and so. connexion with 
Lat. camp-u-s (Campani) and Osc. Kapva (Capua) is probable. Other- 
wise Fick 1°. 519. 

56 b. Knpd-s wax, knpio-v honey-comb. — Lat. céra.— Lith. 
kéri-s honey-comb. 

Pictet i. 409, Fick 1°. 523.—The Ir. céir (Ir. Gloss. 225), Cymr. 
kuyr, Corn. coir ‘cera’ (Z. 97), are borrowed from the Latin. 

57. Root kt «i-w I go (per-e-xi-a-0-0-v), Ki-vv-pat move 
myself, hasten, xi-vé-m move, set going. 
Skt. ¢7, by-form ¢a@ whet, sharpen. 
Lat. ci-o, ci-e-o move, excite, ct-tu-s in motion, swift, 
excito, incito. 
Bopp ‘Gl’ under the unattested verbal-stem Kaj (Kaj-dm-i ‘e0’). 


150 


172 BOOK II. 


Grassmann 1389, Fick i°. 55, Vani¢ek 151.—In Homer only é-x-o-v, 
ki-ot, Ki-ov, etc., which forms are related to ki-vv-yar as ap-€-cba to 
dp-vu-pat: ktets only Aesch. ‘Choeph.’ 666 Herm. ékiaro éxwvetro Hesych. 
per-e-kiabe. — ki-vé-@ : KL=KU-vée-w: Kv; the present stem then became 
the verbal stem. An expansion of xiv gives kwicoecOa ‘sway, 
kwvypa (Aesch. ‘P. V. 157). It is probable that dvo-kiv-6-to-s ‘donkey- 
driver’ (Pollux i. 185) also belongs here. A reduplicated form is 
perhaps to be found in the aor. éa (Aristoph. ‘Ach.’ 869 dméxEav 
‘depulerunt.’ — According to Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 313 the Corn. 
imperat. ke ‘go’ (Z?. 586) belongs here. 

57 b. kAddos twig.— AS. holt, OHG. holz wood, timber. 

— Olt. caill silva, ola-chaill olivetum (Z?. 855). 

Fick ‘ Ztschr. xxi. 368.— Irish forms, like sin chaillid (dat.) ‘in 
the wood,’ point to a stem caldet. 

58. Root kde, KAém-7-o@ steal, KAS, KAoT-EU-s, KAET- 
7-s thief, kAom-7 theft. — Lat. clep-o. — Goth. hlif-a 
steal, hlif-tu-s thief. — Pruss. au-klip-t-s hidden. 

Pott W. 11. 1, 197, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 401. The Indo-Germanic root 
which we arrive at is klap.— Pictet ii. 441 gives other conjectures. 
— Fick* 541 compares Skt. kharp-ara-s, which means, among other 
things, ‘thief, ‘rogue. But for this the root is European only. 
Several attempts have been made to connect xpu8, k(a)Avmr-To. 

59. KAn-i-s, Kreis key, KAni-w, KAei-w shut, KAold-s a 
dog-collar, kA«t-Opo-v bar. — Lat. clavi-s, cla-vu-s, 
clau-d-o. — OHG. sliuz-w I shut. — ChSl. kiju-&% 
uncus, clavis, kljucati se convenire. — Olr. clt= 
Lat. clavus, Cymr. cloeu clavi (Z?. 285). 

Benf. 11. 289, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 14, Pott W. i. 684, Van. 1123. — 
We may give sklu as the root. The Lat. and Teutonic verb show us 
a d affixed, the Slavonic words a &, such as appears in the Dor. dag 
(Ahr. ‘Dor.’ 140). This stem is confined to the European languages. 
I cannot see any force in Bréal’s explanation (‘ Mém.’ 1. 406), accord- 
ing to which the d of claudo has nothing to do either with that of 
the Greek words, or with the z of the OHG., but comes from the rt. 
vidh (di-vid-ere), so that clau-dere is to be taken as *clavi-vid-ere 
‘isoler par une fermeture. The Teutonic words, he holds, were bor- 
rowed from excludere. — The Olr. cli may be deduced from the nom. 
pl. clit ‘ nails,’ acc. na-clu ‘ clavos’ (Gild. ‘ Lor. Gl’ 153). 

60. Root kAt KAi-v-w lean, bow down, kAl-yvn bed, KAi- 
pa situation, climate, xAt-yag ladder, xAL-oi-a tent, 
KAt-Tv-s slope of a hill. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 173 


Skt. ¢ri (erdja-mt) lean, support, prop up, ¢ri-td-s 
situated, ni-crajani ladder. 

Lat. cli-vu-s slope, cli-tellae saddle, clinare, incli- 
nare, declinare. 

OHG. hliné-m lean, Goth. hlain-s hill, hlaiv (n.) 
tomb, cairn, hli-ja, hlet-thra (f.) tent, AS. hldder 
ladder. 

Lith. szlé-jw bend, lean, ChSl. Aloniti incline. 

Olr. cldin, cléen iniquus. 

Pott W.i. 476, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 401, Fick i. 552, P.W., Joh. Schmidt 
‘Voc.’ 11. 251, Stokes ‘Beitr.’ viii. 313.—The rt. xe appears most dis- 
tinctly in the Homeric xke-«di-arat; the Aeol. pres. is kAivve, cp. ‘Greek 
Verb’ p. 172. — Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 371 explains clitellae and compares 
(‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 261) the proper names Cliternum, Clitumnus. But his 
attempt (17. 463) to separate kdioin, kNiovoy and even ékekArro from this 
root and to refer them to a rt. kl ‘cover,’ is a complete failure. 
Passages like o 213 mapal dexéerou kAOnva, K 472 evrea xara mapa 
avtoiot xOovi kéxdiro, the use of kAiua, etc. prove that KexdicOa never 
means anything but ‘lie,’ ‘be in a certain condition,’ and the P. W. 
gives striking parallels to this from the use of the Skt. eri. Bréal 
‘Mém.’ ili. 248 connects clémens (clé-men-(t)-s).— The Ir. eléin (Z?. 31) 
has the same primary form as the Goth. hlain-s. Further the Oly. cliath 
‘crates, OCymr. cluit=MedLat. cleta (Z?. 18, 97); Oly. clé ‘left,’ 
Cymr. cledd with Goth. hleiduma ‘left,’ all belong here (‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
431). 

61. xAovi-s oS sacrum, KAdvio-v hip, kAovicTHp* Tapa- 
pnplos payatpa (Hesych.).—Skt. crdni-s, Zd. craont 
buttocks, hips. — Lat. cluni-s buttocks, clunaclu-m 
hip-knife. — ON. héaun buttocks. — Lith. szlaunt-s 
upper part of the leg, hip. — Cymr. clun hip, 
Corn. pen-clun buttocks (Z?. 1067). 

Bopp ‘GI.’ Benf. ii. 170, who also compares yAovu-ré-s ‘ buttocks,’ 
and Skt. crénd-s ‘crooked,’ Fick i°. 554.— «d6-n-s for KdoF-m-s, base- 154 
form klau-ni-s (cp. No. 122). On account of the long @% and clunaclum 
=kdovornp Paul. ‘Epit.’ 50 (‘culter sanguinarius dictus vel quia 
clunes hostiarum dividit vel quia ad clunes dependet ’).— Pott W. 1. 
554 holds the Lat. cris to be related as well. — This is one of the few 
words which are common to all the main Indo-Germanic languages. 

62. Root kAuv kAv-w hear, kAv-76-s renowned, xAé-os fame, 
kXe-i-@ make famous, KA€é-o-war am famous, KA€-Lv- 
6-s, KAeL-76-5 renowned. 


174 BOOK II. 


Skt. and Zd. cru hear, Skt. cru-td-s heard, famous, 
crdv-as fame. 

Lat. clu-o, clu-e-o hear, am called, cli-ens one who 
listens, a dependent, in-clu-tu-s. 

Goth. hliu-ma axon, OHG. hli-t loud, hlo-s-é-m hear. 

ChSI. slu-ti nominari, clarum esse, slov-o (st. sloves) 
word, slav-a fame, Lith. szlové honour, klau-s-a% 
hear. 

Olr. rt. clu, claw rumor, gloria, cloth famous, clunim 
hear, OCymr. clot gloria; W. clus, cloor audio, ro 
clus auditum est, clias ear. 


Bopp ‘GL. Benf. ii. 179, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 401, Schleicher ‘ ChS1.’ 
98, Pott W. 1, 713.— The shortest and oldest form appears in 
«hd-O.=Skt. (Ved.) gru-dhi, and xdv-ré-s, Ir. cloth, Lat.-in-clu-tu-s ; 
Khé-os, i, e. kA€F-os (so C. I. No. 1), is formed by vowel-intensification 
and corresponds exactly to the Skt. erdv-as, and the ChSl. slov-es, Ir. 
cli; kde-i-w, KAé-o-par are also to be referred to this strengthened 
stem. — Lat. cli-ens most likely (as Corssen ii% 740 holds) from 
clu-i-ens (cp. tn-ciens No. 79). We may add elu-v-ior ‘nobilior,’ Loewe 
‘Prodr.’ 364. — Lat. gloria is compared by Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 398 ff. 
with the Skt. cravas-jd-m ‘fame,’ ‘famous deed’ (cp. Pott i. 214), 
and it is argued that as from jus came wytiria, so gloria for glosia 
could have come from glés=klavas xhéfos; g for k as in glocto khagw 
(Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 53, otherwise Pictet 11. 204).— The verb in OHG., 
Lith., and Ir. contains a formative affixed s like the Skt. eru-sh, erush- 
ti ‘obsequiousness’ (acc. to Roth; ep. No.546). — Does also a-xpo-d-opat, 
keeping the 7, belong here? The authorities for the Ir. words and for 
verbal-forms from the British languages in Z?. 25, 502, 604, 839; 
the Ir. cléas comes from a *claus-td, cp. Cymr. clusteu ‘aures’ Z?, 285. 
— The primitive form of the root is kru. 


63. Root kAv KAv-¢@ wash, xAv-d-wy wave, kAv-o-6-$ 
splashing, KAv-pévn name of a Nereid (?). 
OLat. clu-ére purgare, clo-dca. 
Goth. hlu-t-r-s pure, OHG. hlitar (Germ. lauter.) 


The OLat. clwere is vouched for by Pliny xxv. 29, 36 ‘cluere 
antiqui purgare dicebant.’ This gives us quite enough reason for 
setting down «dvas the root: the primitive form would therefore have 
been *klu-jd-mt. In Skt. klid ‘humectari,’ ‘madescere’ the difference 
of vowel forbids us to suppose a relationship. — Jurmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 
398 (so too Fick i*, 552) regards klw as the primary and Alud as a 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 175 


secondary root; the Teutonic form came from the latter. — From this 
rt. clu, come, according to Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 314, the OKeltic river- 
name Clotd, KXora, Engl. Clyde, Ir. (claud), gen. cluade in Ail cluade, 
Srath cluada, Strath Clyde, O’Curry’s ‘ Lect.’ p. 591. 
63 b. xvyjun shin, xvnpi-s greave, kvnuo-s mountain 
forest. 152 
OHG. hamma hind-leg, ham, LGerm. Hamm moun- 
tain forest. 
Olx. in chndmai, st. endmi, ossa (Z?. 236). 
Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 368, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 269. 
64. Root kof €-xo-yev noOope0a (Hesych.), ko-€-w, Kov-véw 
I observe, K6-@yv, @vo-oK6o-s looker on at a sacrifice. 
Lat. cav-e-o, cau-tu-s. 
Goth. us-skav-jan be careful, OHG. scawén look (G. 
schauen), Goth. us-skav-s careful, skau-n-s beautiful 
(G. schén). 

Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 373, Kuhn ii. 433, Ebel iv. 157, Pott ii”. 
841, W. 1. 658 ; in ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 238 ff. I have discussed a number of 
other less common forms.—The original root is skav; Ebel rightly recog- 
nises a trace of the o in 6vo-cxéo-s, the primitive meaning is preserved 
in the Germ. schauen ‘look ;’ the Goth. skav-s comes near to cau-tu-s. 
The proper names in -kowv, such as Aao-kd-wy (AaFoxdfFov Prise, i. 22, 
v1. 69), Anjo-Ké- wv, ‘Imrro-xd-wv, fem. -kdwoa, Evpu-é-a-s, suit the meaning 
well, —kov-vé-w for xof-vée-w in Aesch. ‘Suppl.’ 164, cp. xo-Oeu" aicédverar, 
voet. — It is probable from Hesych. koa dover, mevOerat that dxovo like- 
wise belongs to this root. See Introduction p. 100. Others it is true, 
e.g. Delbriick ‘ Ztschr.’ xvi. 271, connect d-xov-ew (cp. dxovo-ré-s) with 
the Goth. haus-jan‘ to hear.” — The Teutonic words prove that the 
idea of self-protection can come from that of looking. — Perhaps, 
with Fick i°. 815, we may add here kota’ evéyvpa, ka.ov' évéxupov 
~Hesych. It is doubtful whether we ought to connect Skt. kav-i-s 
‘thinker,’ ‘ poet,’ ‘sage,’ d-ku ‘ contemplate.’ 

65. Kdyyxn, Koyxo-s mussel, koyy-vAn, KoyxvA-to-v. — Skt. 
cankhd-s, carkhd-m concha. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iii. 111, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 53. Cp. above 
p- 86.— KdxAos, koxAlor, koyAias ‘snail,’ ‘mussel’ must be derived forms 
for kdyy-do-s etc. It may be that xddAyn ‘purple snail’ and Kaddyas, 
kaxaive are related. Cp. Siegismund ‘Stud.’ v. 214. 

66. Koxkxvé (st. Kox-Kvy) cuckoo, Kéxku cuckoo’s cry, Kok- 
Kt¢o cry like a cuckoo, crow. 


176 BOOK Il. 


Skt. kokild-s the Indian cuckoo. 

Lat. cuctiilu-s. 

Lith. kuktti ery like a cuckoo, ChSl. kukavica 
cuckoo. 

Ir. cwach, Cymr..cdg cuckoo. 


Pott W. iii. 141, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 314. In Gk. the last « is 
softened to y. I do not venture to say whether or not xavkadias* dps 
mows Hesych. is related.. The root seems to be ku, Skt. ki (kdu-tr) 
‘to scream, kd-kii-ja-té intensive of the same, not far removed from 
coxv-o and Lith. katk-ti ‘ howl, 


67. KoAeKdvo-s, KoAoKaévo-s lean, koAocoé-s a great statue. 
153 Skt. kar¢ to become lean, kr¢d-s lean, slim. 
OLat. crac-entes graciles, Lat. grac-ili-s. 


Pott W. ili. 497.— kodrexavor Hesych. emi unous ody Aemrdérntt, KohoKavot" 
edpnkers kal Aerrol. Strattis fr. 65 Meineke. — Hehn® p. 273 compares 
kodok-vvTn ‘gourd,’ so called, he says, ‘from its colossal size.’ — cracentes 
Ennius ‘Annal.’ 497 (Vahlen): ‘ media regione cracentes.’ — xodocad-s 
for xo\ox-jo-s. Perhaps related to No. 68. 


67 b. KéAXa glue, koAAaY to glue.—ChSI. klij, Lith. kliyea 


(plur.) glue. 
Fick 1°. 529. Primary form kalja. 


68. KoA-wvd-s, KoA-ov7 hill, koA-0-d-dy summit. 
Lat. cel-su-s, ex-cel-lo, col-u-mna, cul-men, colli-s. 
OS. holm hill, height, Eng. hill. eT. 
Lith. kél-ti lift, kdél-na-s height, pra-kil-nw-s ele- 
vated. 


Pott W. ii. 1, 181.— The change from d to p suggests also xopudn, 
Képw6os and No. 38.— colli-s perhaps for col-ni-s. Cp. No. 29.—Gliick 
(‘ Beitr.’ v. 97) connects with these words the old Gallic celienon, 
together with the Goth. kélikn (mipyos, dveyaov) borrowed from the 
Celtic, cp. Becker ‘ Beitr.’ iv. 136. 


68 b. Root kom xkém-r-w hew, strike, tire, xéu-pa in- 
cision, Kom-7 cutting, xKom-et-s chisel, xéz- 
avo-v, Kkom-i-s knife, sword, x6é7-.-s chatterer, 
bore, ké7r-o-s fatigue, xom-.dé-w I am tired, xowd- 
(m I tire, kod-6-s blunt, dumb, deaf, xéz-ov 
capon. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 177 


Goth. hamf-s mutilated, ON. ham-la mutilate, NHG. 
Hammel wether. 

ChSl. skop-t-tt castrare, skop-tct eunuchus, Lith. 
kap-6-tt cut, kapd-né mattock. 

Pott i’. 140, Benf. i. 193, Grimm ‘Ges¢h.’ 401.— The ¢ in kcodd-s 
(cp. obtiisus) is, as the Goth. hamf-s shows, of later formation. — skap 
seems the primitive form, and hence cxéz-ap-vo-y ‘ axe’ (cp. No. 109) 
seems to be related.— The meaning of kémo-s suggests the German 
zerschlagen, abgeschlagen sein ‘to be knocked up.’ koz-i-s ‘chatterer’ 
is more remarkable. — In kdér-wy (cp. Lat. capo, capu-s), which is only 
given in Glossaries (cp. Stier ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 227), the older a is pre- 
served. — For other explanations see J. Grimm ‘Ueber Diphthongen’ 
p. 15f., Clemm ‘Stud.’ iii. 325, who brings «i/8dndo-s under this root ; 
otherwise Fick i*. 550. 

69. kép-ag raven, Kop-évn crow.— Skt. karava-s crow(?). 
— Lat. cor-vu-s raven, cor-n-ix crow. — OHG. 
hrab-an, hruoh. — Pol. kru-k raven. — Ix. ert fechta 
corvus praelii. 

Bopp “Gl.,’ Pott i*. 213, Benf. i1. 132, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 45, 
47, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 315.— The stem of the words is the Indo- 
Germanic kar (cp. xpagew ‘ croak’). Pott compares ji-n-ix=juven-ca 
with cor-n-iv ; the ¢ is paragogic, and a stem-form cor-na, cor-ni-s 
may accordingly be assumed which approaches more nearly to the Gk. 
kop-oyn. ‘The derivation of the Skt. kérava-s, which is not vouched for 
except inthe lexicons, fromthe interrogative-stem ka, and rava-s ‘sound’ 
is manifestly false, because the v is clearly derivative. Cp. above p. 39. 


69b. Ko7T-0An, KoT-vdo0-s cup, KoTvAn-deay a cup-shaped 
hollow. — Skt. Kat-vdla-s pit. — Lat. cat-tnu-s 
cup, dish, dim. cat-tllu-s. 

Fick i°. 516. — Perhaps it belongs to Skt. Kat ‘hide,’ in the sense of 
preserve. xorvAn acc. to Hesych. means ‘hole’ as well (tpoydn), korv- 
hioxos ‘pit,’ the former in general may kotor. 

70. kox-@vn xvoi-s Hesych. hinder part. 
Skt. kdksha-s arm-pit, side, kukshd-s, kuksht-s belly. 
Lat. coxa, coxendix hip-bone, cossim. 
OHG. hahsa bend of the knee. 

Benf. ii. 24.— The original meaning of the Skt. hdksha-s, accord- 
ing to the ‘Ptsb. Wtb.,’ is ‘ hiding place,’ hence it is transferred to 
yarious hidden parts of the body. «oxoym must be for xo€ovn (ep. 
p- 700).—cosstm Pomponius (Ribbeck ‘ Comici’ 129): ‘hoc sciunt 

N 


154 


178 BOOK II. 


omnes qui cossim cacant.’ — Joh. Schmidt ‘Vocal.’ i. 153 comes to the 
conclusion that the root is kak ‘to bend,’ to which the Skt. kakKana-m 
‘string, Goth. hahan (to hang), and Lat. cingere, cing-ulu-m 
belong. Fick i°. 576 connects ko-xavy with Skt. ga-ghdna ‘hinder 
parts,’ ‘pudenda.’ — With the Lat. cova Z’. 103 identifies Cymr. coes 
‘femur,’ Oly. coss ‘ pes.’ 
71. Root xpad xpaéd-n swing, twig, tip, kpadd-o, Kpa- 
daivm swing. 

Skt. kurd spring (f. kard), kird-ana-m springing. 

Lat. card-o (st. card-en) hinge, pole, revolution. 

ON. hrata to waver. 


‘Ind. Lect. aestiv. Kil. a. 1856’ p. viii, Pictet ii. 471, Fick 
‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 164. — xpadaivw was connected by Voss in the ‘ Etymol.’ 
p. 108 with cardo ‘in cardinibus enim janua agitatur vertiturque.’ 
The original meaning is ‘to swing,’ whence xpddn is explained,— 
according to Pollux iv. 129 the suspended machine used in comedy 
for making actors appear in the air, whence the saying xpddys payetons 
Plut. ‘Prov. Alex. Cent.’ ii. 16 ém trav rpopavevray aipuidios. — Perhaps 
too xopdvAn ‘a club,’ and the dance xépdaé are related. — The verbal 
meaning of cardo comes out plainly in expressions like ‘ tanto cardine 
rerum’ (Verg. ‘Aen.’ i. 672). The form xdaddca oceioa Hesych. is 
perhaps only a denominative from kdddos ‘twig.’ — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
315 connects these Celtic words: Ir. cetrd ‘journey,’ Corn. kerd ‘ iter,’ 
OCymr. credam ‘vado, which however remind us more of the OS. 
sertdan ‘stride.’ Nearer in meaning are the Iv. fo-cheird ‘ deponit,’ 
‘jacit,’ perf. fo-chaird ‘dejecit’ (Tur. Gl.’ 131); fo-cheirt Z?. 1000 
for cheird cp. Z. 60.— Cp. No. 39. 
72. Root ae ae Kpaly-o I complete, kpaév-twp, avto- 
Kpd-Twp, Kpelwv, kpéwy ruler, Kpévo-s. 
Skt. kar do, make, kdr-man, krija deed, holy action, 
kartr (kar-tér) completer, creator. 
Lat. cer-u-s, Ceres, pro-cér-u-s, cre-0, caeri-mon-ta. 
Lith. kur-iv build (2). 
Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. Ar, where he compares more or less correctly many 
155 other words, Pott W. 11. 1, 130, Benfey 1. 170, Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 
387. — kpaiv-w 1. e. kpav-ja comes from a stem with affixed v which 
suggests the Vedic kyrno-mi, the Homeric forms ékpatawov, xpynvor, 
kexpdavrat on the other hand point to a stem xpajay, which must be 
denominative, so that cpaaive is related to a conjectural *kraja ‘ deed’ 
(cp. krija) as kpaSaivw is to xpddn. xkpetov is a present form with «. 
Kp-évo-s suggests the Skt. Aarand-s ‘making,’ ‘dexterous. G. Hermann 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 179 


(‘de theol. Graec. antiqu.’ p. 176), and after him Schoemann (‘Opuse.’ 
li, 112), interpreted the name ‘ Perficus.’ — Ceru-s manus (bonus 
ereator Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 122) is like Ceres (a creando dicta Serv. ad 
‘Georg.’ i. 7)—which however Pott i’. 197, Bopp ‘Comp. Gr.’ i. 282 
explain otherwise (cp. Corssen i®. 473)—formed directly from the rt. 
kar, but creare from the same stem *kraja (creja) which we used to 
explain kpaaive. The inchoative to creo is cre-sc-o. The ae in caeri- 
monia is similar to that in saep-io (cp. onxds). Otherwise Corssen i”. 
376. — vat-xpa-po-s ‘ship-maker’ (?) (Gust. Meyer ‘Stud.’ vii. 179). — 
The words derived from xpa with a suffixed r form a group by them- 
selves—xpa-ri-s ‘strong,’ Kparvdo-s, kpativ-w ‘strengthen,’ xpdros, kapros 
‘strength, xparéw ‘I have power,’ kaprepés ‘ powerful,’ kparaids ‘strong.’ 
The Vedic krdtu-s ‘ force,’ ‘ hero’ (Grassmann) corresponds to these. — 
On kpa-rai-hew-s cp. No. 42 b.— The Celtic words Cymr. cerdd ‘art,’ 
pl. cerddeu ‘carmina’ (Z?. 139), OIr. cerd (once cert Z?, 60) ‘aerarius,’ 
‘faber,’ ‘ poeta,’ cerddchae ‘officina,’ which are connected by Stokes 
‘Tr. Gl.’ 218 and Ebel Z?. 1000 with the Skt. kar, contain a rt. cerd 
like the Gk. képdioros, xépdos, Lat. cerdo. We have no ground for 
assuming a connexion with the cert mentioned under No. 76. 


74, xpéas flesh, xpetov (Ion. kpjiov Hesych.) meat board, 

dresser. | 

Skt. kravja-m, kravt-s raw flesh; kri-rd-s sore, 
bleeding. 

Lat. caro (st. caren) (%), eru-or, cru-entu-s. 

Goth. hraiv (2), OHG. hréo (st. hréwa) cadaver. 

ChSl. krvvt cruor, Lith. krawja-s blood, krwvina-s 
bleeding. 

Olr. crvu blood. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 680, Schleicher ‘ Ksl. 96, Pauli ‘ Kérpertheile’ 
25. — Kuhn ‘ Ztschr,’ 11. 236 explains the + in the Homeric kpeév as the 
remains of the z or j retained in the Skt. words, and holds accordingly 
that xpeias is for kpeFjas st. kpeFjar. This is not so simple as Merzdorf’s 
comparison (‘ Stud.’ ix. 224) of xpéas with kravis, so that « (or 7) is 
due to the influence of the F. Thus we get to an Indo-Germanic stem 
krav, karv; but krav points to the shorter kru, retained in cru-or 
and the Lith. Ariv-ia-s, as the root (No. 77). Blood gets the name 
from its curdling, and flesh from the blood which it contains. — Scherer 
‘z, Gesch.’ 472 explains the Gothic diphthong here as in other cases 
(cp. No. 31) by epenthesis. — Fick ii°. 53 and Bréal (‘ Mém. il. 381) 
separate caro (for carv-o?) and put it with xeipo. Otherwise again 
Darmesteter ‘Mém.’ ii. 74. — With the Lat. caro are connected the 

N 2 


180 BOOK II. 


Olr. colinn, gen. colno ‘ corpus,’ ‘ caro’ (Z?. 249), Cymr. celein ‘ cadaver ’ 
(Z?. 828), also the Cymr. calon ‘heart,’ Corn. colon (Z?. 824) (?) 

75. xkpéua-par hang (intr.), kpeudvvvpme hang (tr.), kpnuvd-s 
precipice. — Goth. hram-jan to crucify, OHG. rama 
sustentaculum. 

Benf. ii. 307, Pott W. ii. 1, 171.— Lith. kar-¢& ‘hang’ (tr. and 
156 intr.) may be related in stem, in which case the nasal in Gk. and 
Goth. would have to be regarded as a derivative suffix (Intr. p. 65). 
Several words related with «Ave, and referable to a rt. kar (Skt. 
car), are discussed by Bugge ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ ii. 117, e.g. ON. hall-r 
‘bending forwards.’ Also Hal-de ‘ gallery in a mine, and Lat. elt-vu-s 
belong to the same root. (So too Heyne in Grimm’s ‘ Dict.’). 


76. Root kpt xpi-v-@ separate, decide, xpi-yvo-v coarse 
ground barley, xpi-r7-s judge, xpi-ci-s decision, 
Kpl-THpLlo-v rule, test. 

Skt. apa-skara-s, ava-skara-s excrement. 

Lat. cri-bru-m sieve, cer-n-o sift, cer-tu-s, ex-cre- 
mentu-M. 

Goth. skeiv-s pure, skeir-ein-s interpretatio, AS. 
hri-dder, OHG. riterd sieve, riddle, ON. skil-ja 
separate. 

Lith. skir-iw% separate, sort, choose. 

Olr. rt. crt criathar cribrum, OCymr. cruitr pala; 
rt. scar OlIr. scaraim (st. scaraja) secedo, etar- 
scaraim I separate; scuirim (st. scoria) I unyoke. 


Pott W. ii. 1, 161, Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. 47. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr, i. 146 gives 
skar as the orig. form, with which cxop st. cxapr (No. 110) is con- 
nected. Benf. ii. 171, Corssen ‘ Beitr.” 451, 12. 177, Delbriick 
‘Ztschr. f. d. Phil. i. 18.— Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 333 conjectures the 
original identity of this root with No. 53. — xpi and xpi6n ‘ barley’ on 
the other hand he refers to a rt. ghardh on account of hord-eu-m and 
OHG. gers-ta (cp. Pott i. 143, otherwise Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 385), — 
Pictet 11. 285 is perhaps right in connecting with the meaning ‘ sepa- 
rate’ xdpo-s ‘broom,’ kopéw ‘sweep,’ which is by others (Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 
403) connected with Skt. karsh ‘draw’ and Lat. verr-o (for evers-o). 
— The metaphysical meaning of xpivw, kpiva, xpurns agrees with that 
of certu-s and the Goth. skevrein-s. The frequentative certare (cp. 
decernere) corresponds. to kpiveoOat (e. g.”Apye B 385) along with dro- 
KpiveaOa, tmoxpivesOa, See ‘ Berichte d. Siichs. Ges. d. W. 1866’ p. 
148. crimen (cp. discrimen) is properly 1d xpuédpuevov, something 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 18} 


‘sifted ’ or ‘ separated,’ as sé-men is 76 oretpdpevov. Cp. Corssen ‘ Ital. 
Sprachk.’ 229. — For the authority for the Celtic words see Z?. 782,831, 
874. The Ir. cert ‘justice, etar-cert, -cert, ‘interpretatio,’ co-ceirt 
‘emendatio’ must also belong here, but if so, must be separated from 
fo-cheird, fo-ceirt ‘deponit’ (see under No. 71), with which Ebel Z?. 
1000 connects them. 

77. Root xpu xpv-os frost, kpu-y6-s frost, kpud-o-war am 
freezing, kpvd-ei-s making one shudder, kpvataive 
make to freeze, kpUoTadXo-s ice. 

Skt. kri-rd-s sore, bleeding, stiff.— Zd. khri-ra 
frightful. 

Lat. cru-s-ta, crtui-du-s, criideli-s. 

OHG. Ardo (gen. hrdwes) raw. 

Ir. cruaid hard, erddatu durities (Z . 23, 257). 

Benf. ii. 178, Grimm ‘Gesch.” 401, Fick i°. 539 f., Corssen i’. 
359. The fundamental notion of the root is ‘to be hard,’ ‘to curdle ;’ 
probably it is connected with No. 42 b and No. 74, the words which 
denote frost are perhaps to be referred to a stem expanded by an 
added s. Cp. Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ 11. 340. — éxpvoécons Z 344, dxpuder- 
tos I 64, with the same meaning as the forms without 6 may well have 
arisen in both passages from pure mistake, if it is held that the genitives 157 
that precede them were originally pronounced kaxoynydvoo, émdnpioo, 
(Jahn’s ‘ Jahrb.’ Bd. 67. p. 9. — On crus-ta see Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 416. 


77 b. Root ktav, Kktev Krefyv-w (krivvu-pt) kill, kxrévo-s 
murder, xaiv-m kill. — Skt. kshan kshan-0-mi 
injure, wound, (partic. ksha-td-s laesus), ksha-ti-s 
damage, destruction. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 489, Benf. 1. 179. — The nm in the Skt. is only 
euphonic for n. Skt. ksh=Gk. xr as in tékshan=rexrov (No. 235), 
In the language of Homer we find the shorter stem xra («rd-pevas, 
Kré-w-pev, kata-xtd-s), Which is related to rev as ya is to yev (No. 128), 
and ra to rev (No. 230). Cp.‘ Greek Verb’ pp. 114, 130, for kao p. 216. 
— Fick i°. 802 gives the original root as skan (whence the Goth. skatha 
‘scathe’), and regards xaive, with no reason, as far as I can see, as a 
separate word altogether. 

78. Root «tt év-«7i-pevo-s well built, mepi-xri-ov-es, ap- 
dixti-oves neighbours, xri¢w settle, found, xri-cl-s 
founding. 

Skt. kshi, kshi-j-ami dwell, kshdj-d-mi possess, 
kshdj-a-s, kshitt-s dwelling. — Zd. khshi dwell. 


182 BOOK IT. 


Pott W. i. 482, where kri-do-s ‘tame’ is also compared. Benf. ii. 
185, Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 288. — The fact that xr corresponds to ksh 
(from ks) has been mentioned under No. 77 b. Cp. on No. 45.—To the 
older form, preserved in the Skt. -/sha ‘living,’ ksha ‘dwelling,’ belongs 
krd-o-pat ‘acquire, Krj-pa, xrj-ot-s, and, since ksh comes from sk, the 
ChSl. sko-ti% ‘ possession,’ ‘cattle’ (xrjqvos), Goth. skatt-s ‘money.’ Fick 
i°, 203, Zimmer ‘ Suffix a,’ 294. 

79. Root kv (kv-é-@, caus. kvicxw) be pregnant, xv-os, 
xd-ua fetus, kU-ap, Kv-T-os cavity, Kot-do-s hollow, 
KolA-(a belly, cav-d6-s stalk. 

Skt. cua (¢udj-d-mt) swell up, part. p. cuind-s swollen, 
cuna-m a void, ¢é-cu-s the young of animals, 

Lat. ¢n-ci-ens pregnant, cu-mu-lu-s, cav-u-s, cau-l-s, 
stalk, cau-lae hollows. 

Goth. ws-hul-dn hollow out, hul-undi cavity, OHG. 
hol hollow. 

Lith. kdu-la-s bone, Lett. kaul-s bone, stalk. 

Cymr. cwn altitudo, cynu surgere, er-chynu elevare, 
"Ap-ktvia dpn (Z7. 92, 895); Olr. cach cup. 

Bopp ‘Comp. Gram.’ i. 232, where the Lat. ere-sc-o which belongs 
to No, 72 is wrongly compared. — Pott W. i. 702. — Stokes ‘ Beitv.’ 
viii. 315. A very wide-spread root with two essentially distinct 
shades of meaning (Grassmann 1409). (1) Negative: to be swollen, 
hollow. Here belong «v-ap, xv-a-Oo-s, kv-ros, Ki-ha (ra broxdrw Tdy Bre- 
dpor koikopata Hesych.), KvA@y, xv-An, xd-ALE ‘cup,’ perhaps KuAAjvy (for 
kud-F.) ‘hollow hill’ (Lob. ‘ El.’ 1. 354).—*xéFo-s= Lat. adj. cavu-s (xéou 
koiAwpatra Hesych.=subst. cavu-s), also Kéas, Kés(?), kas" eipxrn Hesych., 
further *xof-sAos, with epenthesis xou(F)-vA0-s (Mimn. 12, 5; Alcaeus 15, 
5), cp. Dietrich ‘Zitschr.’ x.442. According to Mor.Schmidt ‘Rh. M.’xx. 
305 xdidos can be read almost everywhere in Homer. Finally, xav-dé-s. 
The transition from ‘hollow’ to ‘empty’ is peculiar to the Indian 
languages. (2) Positive: to be swollen, full, strong, and that (a) with 
reference to the fruit of the body kveiv, Skt. ¢é-cu-s, Lat. im-ciens 
(Paul. ‘Epit.’ 97, Doderlein ‘Et. u. Syn.’ v. 228), xovo-fédpo-s* eyxvos. 
(b) with reference to strength in general: xi-cv-s ‘strength,’ =Skt. 
cdv-as, gwra-s ‘strong,’ ‘hero’ (No. 22), xi-wa ‘swell,’ ‘wave,’ (cp. 
oidua). — Further derivatives from this root in Celtic languages are 
discussed by Windisch ‘ Beitr,’ viii. 40. 

80. KvuPn, KvuBo-s cask, goblet, kiuB-ado-v basin. 

Skt. kumbhd-s pot, pitcher. — Zd. khumba (m.) pot. 


Pott i' 84. [Fick ‘Spracheinheit ’ p. 284].—8=bh. after p ; cp. p. 532. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 183 


81. Root kup, KvA kup-7é-s bent, Kip-x-o-s ring, KvA- 
Aé-¢ bent, Kv-KA-o-s circle, kvA-i-w (kvdivde) roll. 
Skt. Ka-kr-d-s (for ka-kr-a-s) wheel, disk, circle. 
Lat. cir-cu-s, circ-u-m, circa, cur-vu-s. 
OHG. hring ring. 
Lith. kreéva-s crooked, wound, ChSl. krivi bent, kolo — 
wheel. 
Olr. cor, ace. pl. curu gyros (Z?. 1048); Cymr. cor- 
wynt, Arem. cor-uent turbo (Z?. 889); Olr. crich f. 
finis, territory (cp. kipxos); cwairt circuitus (for 
cucra-ti, cp. KUKXos %); cruind round, Cymr. crwnn 
(cp. kvrAvde). | 
Bopp‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 174, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 94, 96, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
vill. 316. — Kup-nvn, and Kép-xvpa may be added. — The expanded form 
of the root in Lat. cling-ere cingere (Fest. 56) comes nearest to the 
OHG. word. — It is true that no rt. kar occurs as a verb in any 
language, but we can by its help explain the Skt. Ka-krd-s as re- 
duplicated, and again xép-ko-s ‘tail,’ kop-avy (eidos orepdvov Hesych.), 
Lat. corona, xopw-vi(d)-s ‘bent,’ and xopw-vd-s ‘with crooked horns.’ 
A took the place of p and thus arose the rt. cad which is to be seen in 
kad-wdéo = kvdr-wdé@ (cp. ChSl. £ol-o). — Where an ¢ appears it is to be 
regarded as a weakening of a. — Further combinations are suggested 
by Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii. 273 ff. — The OI®. cruind is a stem like dlind 
decorus (suff. -ndi Z?. 795) and stands for curind, whence the compara- 
tive cutirre for cuirndiu like dille for ailndiu Z?. 275). — The Celtic 
words Cymr. kyrchu quaerere (cp. Ital. cercare), Cymr. cyrchyd= 
‘circuitus, cylch ‘circle,’ =cyclus are all borrowed from the Latin. 


82. kip-os might, xvpd-w strengthen, kdp-.o-s mighty, 
lord. 
Skt. cura-s hero, ¢ira-ta heroism, Zd. ciira strong, 
awful. 
OIr. caur, cur hero, gen. caurad, curad, Cymr. cawr 
gigas, pl. cewrt, Corn. caur gigas, caur-march 
camelus (Z?. 129, 284). 


Bopp ‘G1,’ Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 42.— In the face of Pott’s at- 
tack (ii. 375) I hold to the connexion of these words, considering 
ct i.e. ki, kui (No. 79) as the root Hence may have come a mase. 
subst. *kii-ra-s (cp. Skt. gdv-as ‘strength), Gk. *xupo-s, related to 7d 
Kip-os as aiaxpd-s is to aicxos. kiip-é-w (also xip-w), as is probable from 
kupirrev ‘knock,’ originally denoted a physical contact and has nothing 


p 


184, BOOK II 


to do with these words. —I am not so clear as to the connexion with 
159 koip-avo-s, notwithstanding the near approach in meaning to kipwo-s, 
because of the difficulty presented by the diphthong. Cp. however 
Aovyd-s with Avypd-s and Aevyadéo-s. As to Kodpos, képos which I brought — 
under this root before, I have changed my opinion (cp. note to 
No, 53). 

83. xu-vé-@ (aor. €-Kv-0a) kiss, mpoo-Ku-vé-w. — Skt. kus 
or ku¢ amplecti (kis-ja-mi).— Corn. cussin oscu- 

lum, Cymr. cussan (Z?. 1068). 

Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Benf. ii. 152, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 316. — As we have no 
instance of the use of the Skt. word it is doubtful. — The OHG. kussju, 
Goth. kukja ‘I kiss’ must be separated because the letter-change is 
not according to rule. 

83 b. xvmn hole, hut. — Skt. kupa-s pit, hollow. 

Pictet 1. 267. — The Gk. word occurs only in Hesych. with the by- 
form yimn. Since kuipa-s means also an oil-flask, and since other 
vessels of different kinds are called ‘ hollows,’ Pott is most likely right 
in comparing kim-eA)o-y, dudi-Kimeddov, and the Lat. ctipa ‘cask’ (cp. 
ChSl. kupa poculum), also ‘recess for holding a corpse.’ Corssen 
1’, 546, . 

83 c. Kuvad-s, Kio-Go-s pudenda muliebria. — Skt. ¢ush-i-s 
fissure, hole. — Lat. cun-nu-s. — Lith. kuszy-s. 

Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 232. — Frohde ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ 1. 329. 

84, Kv-wv (st. kvov and xuy) dog. — Skt. eva (st. evan, 

Ved. guan and cun). — Lat. can-i-s (for evan-t-s). 
— Goth. hun-d-s (with added d). — Lith. szt% (st. 
seun). — OIr. c&, gen. con, dat. coin. Cymr. ci, 
ki, Corn. ki, chi. 

Bopp ‘GL, Pott i. 127, Benf. i. 165, according to him belonging 
to No. 79—‘the animal that bears often and many young,’ more 
likely ‘the strong one. lL. Havet ‘Mém.’ ii. 185.— Herod. i. 110 of 
MSc thy Kiva omdka kadéovar, explained by the Zend. ¢pd acc. epadn-em, 
with the addition of a paragogic k, while the sibilant raised the v to p 
by assimilation (cp. p. 76).— The Lydian name Kav-datAy-s explained 
by oxvddonvikrns (cp. Hipponax fr. 1 Bergk) I brought under this head 
in Hofer’s ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 220. 

84 b. x@vo-s peg, cone, top, dim. xwvio-v, kavi-s. — Skt. 
caza-s whetstone. — Lat. ctineu-s. — ON. hein (f.) 
whetstone. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. ¢d and gana, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 400, Pott W.i. 492. — 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 185 


The more distantly related words are treated by Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 
i, 363 ff., 472 ff. — Nearest come Lat. cd-s (st. cot) and cau-te-s, ca-tu-s 
‘sharp, ‘pointed,’ Varro L. L. vii. 46, whence Cato. The meaning of the 
root then is ‘to be pointed, sharp,’ cf. rt. dk (No. 2).— cwnei in the 
‘Carmen Saliare’ are the thunderbolts of Jupiter (Bergk ‘ Ind. lect. 
Marb. hib. a. 1847-48’ p. xiii), a fact that throws light on the 
meaning. — ON. hein points to an original form kanjé@ (Scherer 472, 
Delbriick ‘Ztschr. f. d. Phil’ i. 16), which suits cdin-eu-s. Cp. Joh. 
Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 482. 


84 ¢. Kwr-ido-s garrulous, kw7iAAewv prattle, wheedle. — 
Skt. kdttha-té he boasts, praises, blames. — Lith. 
katilin-ti prattle. 

Fick i°. 516. 
85. Root Aak é€-Adk-o-v, X€é-AGK-a, Ad-ocK-w crash, roar, 

Aak-e-po-s resounding, Aaképu¢a croaking. 

Lat. loqgu-o-r, loqu-ax, loqu-ela, Ajus Locu-ti-us. 

ChsSl reka loquor, Lith. su-rik-ti cry out, rék-iv 
scream. 

Olr. at-luchur do dia gratias ago deo, at-luchfam 
buidi referamus gratias (Z?. 488, 869). 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 131, Fick i°. 22, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
316.— No connexion whatever with A¢y-w (No. 538). — The Skt. lap 
‘chatter, I think it best to omit. Joh. Schmidt connects the ChSl. 
reka with the OHG. rohdn ‘rugire,’ ‘Voc.’ ii. 496. — Ir. (at)-luchur= 
Lat. loguor; in its religious application the Ir. verb exactly agrees 
with the Skt. érkami. 


86. AOK AdK-os, Aaxk-i-s rag, AaK-e-pd-s torn, AdK-Ko-s 
hole, pool. 
Lat. lac-er, lacer-o, lac-in-ia, lac-u-s, lacti-na, la-ma. 
Lith. lank-a, lénké meadow, ChSl. laka palus. 
OIr. loch lacus, gen. locho, Corn. lagen stagnum (Z?. 
239, 1077). 


Pott W. ili. 257, Benf. ii. 16, Stokes ‘Ir. G.’ 781. — The fundamental 
meaning is ‘ tear,’ and so pdkos, which according to Hesych. was Adkos with 
the Cretans, would seem to be related. Since the Aeolians said Bpakos, 
the root seems to be Fpak, FAax, and to be related to the Skt. vrack ‘ scin- 
dere,’ Corssen 1’. 312. Otherwise Fick 1°. 748. — The local meaning 
in the sense of the Germ. Bruch ‘ breach,’ hence ‘marsh’ may be seen 
also in Adk-as* ddpayyas (Hesych., cp. paxrot’ pdpayyes), with which 


*. 


160 


161 


186 BOOK II. 


must be connected Adkpoy, Aakinoy, Aaxedainov (EE, Curtius ‘ Peloponn,’ 
ii. 309), the latter immediately with Aakeddya, Udap adyupdv (Hesych.). 
Aakedaipov arose evidently from Aakedap-cov by epenthesis. The suffix 
-cav forms meptextixd, €. &, Kvax-tov, — From the Latin we may perhaps 
also compare dacerna, which is easily explained from pdkos (cp. 
cav-er-na). 

87. Aedoo-w look (st. Aeuk). 

Skt. lok (lok-a-té), loK (l0K-a-té) see, scan, l6k-ana-m 
eye. 

Lith. léuk-i-u wait, Lett. dikd-t look. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. 11. 243, Benf. ii. 126, 327. — Relationship with 
Aeukd-s rt. Avk (No. 88) cannot be denied (cp. p. 113). — The rt. Ave in 
its simple form is seen in the proper name Av«-ro-s, genuine Cretan 
Avt-to-s, ua TO KetoOat adtTny ev peTE@PH TOM, TO yap avw Kal bWnddv AU’TTOV 
(rather Aurrdv), aoe (Steph. Byz., Voretzsch ‘de Inscript. Cret.’ p. 11). 
Aurré-s however must have meant originally ‘visible’ (meptoxemros).— 
Cp. No. 548. 

88. Root Auk apdi-Avk-n twilight, Avy-vo-s lamp, Aev- 
K-0-s white, Aotcco-v the white pith of pine- 
wood. 

Skt. ruk (roKé) appear, shine, ruk (f.) light, gleam, 
ruk-md-s gold ornament. — Zd. ruc to give out 
light. 

Lat. luc-eo, luie-s, lu-men, lic-idu-s, li-na, Leucesius, 
di-luc-ulu-m. 

Goth. liuh-ath, OHG. lioht light, Goth. latihmont 
lightning, AS. led-ma gleam. 

ChSl. duéa beam, moon, luct light, Ju-na moon, Lith. 
latika-s pale, lawki-s an ox with a white brow. 

Oly. léche (gen. léchet) fulmen, Corn. luhet fulgur (Z?. 
256, 841). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 129, Corssen 1. 367. — On the stem Auk 
(Avké-as, huxd-Bas, AvxaBnrros) Welcker ‘Griech. Gotterlehre ’1. p. 476 f. 
— The yx in dAvx-vo-s comes from the influence of the v. — lina for lue- 
na, limen for luc-men, Leucesie in the ‘Carmen Saliare’ acc. to Bergk 
‘Ind. lect. hib. Marb. a. 1847-48’ p. xii. as an epithet of Jupiter. — 
in-lus-tri-s too doubtless belongs here, derived from a form with 
added s like the ON. Jjés ‘light,’ ‘ clear,’ lysa ‘ give light’ mentioned 
by Lottner ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 186 (cp. also Zd. raoksh-na ‘ giving light.’ 
Armen. lusin ‘moon,’ Hiibschmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 35, AS. liou-an, 
liv-an ‘ give light,’ Fick i°. 199).——The Lith. latika-s corresponds in 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 187 


form completely with the Gk. Aevké-s, but is used only of cattle and 
horses (Nesselmann). The same adjective is to be seen in the Ir. 
luach-té ‘ white-hot’ (Stokes). The fact that da interchanges with 6 in 
the Oly. lécharnn ‘laterna,’ Corn. lugarn ‘lucerna’ (Z’. 778, 827) 
proves these words to be really Celtic. Cp. Z?. 23 note. 


89. Av’Ko-s. — Skt. v/ka-s.— Lat. lupu-s, Sabine irpu-s. 
— Goth. vulf-s. — ChSl. vltik-%, Lith. vilka-s wolf. 


Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Pott i1?. 356, cp. W. 1. 1283, 1291. — Benf. ii. 26, Grimm 
‘Gesch.’ 332, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 494, Schleicher ‘ Beitr.’ i. 6, where 
varka-s is rightly given as the primitive form (cp. Zend vehrka), from 
which came by metathesis vraka-s, vlaka-s, vluko-s, with loss of v AvKo-s 
for FAvko-s. — Spiegel ‘Ztschr.’ xiii. 366, Stier xi. 143, where traces in 
Albanian of the initial v are noticed. The similarity of sound then 
with No. 88 is only apparent. — Schleicher denies rightly that vulpe-s 
can possibly belong here, but dwpu-s cannot be separated from dixo-s. 
p appears also in the Sabine erpu-s (Corssen 1”. 116) or hirpu-s (Paul. 
‘Epit.’ 106), and we have a clear instance of Lat. » for Indo-Germ. & in 
saepto, praesaepe by the side of Gk. onxd-s. Cp. No. 566. On v as the 
representative of a primitive a see p. 713. The root is generally sought 
for in the Skt. vragk ‘lacerare, which would be favoured by Hesychius’s 
drehixnoev’ anérepev: Pictet i. 431 goes to the rt. vark vrak ‘draw, 
‘drag’ which may be assumed for €Axcw (No. 22), in which case dvKo-s 
would mean ‘robber.’ Fick 1°, 213 holds both roots to be identical. 
AvKo-s with the by-form 6dxés (Hesych.) also means a kind of spider. 
Odkés brings us again to FéAxw (Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ ii. 338). 


90. Root pak wéx-ap beatus, pax-pd-s long, pijKo-s length, 
paxedvo-s thin, Maxedédves. 
Zd. ma¢-anh size, mac-ita large. 
Lith. mék-u I can (?). 


The physical meaning of pdxap is still to be seen in the derived 
meaning ‘rich’ A 68 dvdpds pdkapos Kar’ dpovpavy. Hence padxapes as an 
epithet of the gods, like iepdé-s which in fepds ix@is 1 407 still means 
‘great,’ ‘mighty.’ Sonne ‘Ztschr.’ x. 130, Fick 1°. 168. Cp. Nos. 
462, 473. 


91. phx-ov, Dor. padx-ov poppy. — OHG. mdgo (st. 162 
mdgan), LG. mdn. [Germ. Mohn.|— ChSlL mak-t 
papaver. 

Pott i2. 113. — Perhaps so called from the length of the stalk and so 


related to No. 90, Fick 1°. 707 connects it with the rt. mak (uacoo) 
‘squash.’ 


188 BOOK IT. 


92. Root pvK azro-ptcow blow one’s nose, puk-THp ose, 

pvgéa snivel, MuxddAn?, Mukjvn? 

Skt. muk munk-a-mi let loose, let go. 

Lat. mung-o mic-u-s snivel, micére to be musty, 
mucor mould, micédo snivel. 

ChSl. mok-na-ti madefieri, moéiti madefacere, moct 
urina. 

Olr. muce (st. munca) pig, Cymr. moch. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. 11. 575, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 316. — Also piEcvos 
‘blenny,’ Lat. mugil (?) are related. Hehn® 538 adds from the 
vegetable kingdom the Lacon. pixnpos, povxnpos, ‘almond,’ ‘nut,’ as 
being a mucilaginous fruit.— It is noteworthy with respect to the 
meaning of the Skt. word that acc. to the P. W. it generally has gakrn- 
mitram, i.e. ‘stercus et urinam’ as its object, and that also the 
substantives mdk-ana-m, moksh-ana-m (from the lengthened form 
muksh = Gk. pvé) are often used of liquids. ocptooerae ouvernp in 
Hesych. are remarkable. — Is it not possible that the promontory 
Mvkddn (cp. Muxadynoods) meant ‘little snout,’ like the Norse names 
in -naes ?— mungo: muk=pingo: pik (No. 101). 

93. véx-v-s corpse, véxu-i-a funeral offering, vex-pd-s 
dead. 

Skt. rt. nag (ndé¢-d-mi and nde-ja-mt) disappear, perish, 
nacd-ja-mi destroy, lose, ndéca-s disappearance, fall, 
ndsh-tra danger, destruction. — Zd. nacu (m. f.) 
corpse, na¢-ista very pernicious. 

Lat. nex, nec-o. 

Goth. nau-s, navi-s vexpés. 

ChSI. navi mortuus. 

Oly. é (st. ancw) death, Corn. ancou. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W.1i. 2, 540, Windisch ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 275, Diefen- 
bach ‘ Vergl. Worterb.’ 1. 103. Grimm ‘ib. Diphthonge nach wegge- 
fallenen Consonanten ’ p. 9 explains nau-s to be from nag-u-s. —That 
nocere, noxa are related (Bopp ‘Comp. Gr.’ i. 273) is established by 
the proved use of the root in Skt. and Zend. véco-s, Ion. vodco-s which 
comes very near in meaning to this root is explained by the by-form 
nag (ndcu-ka-s ‘ pernicious’), given in the P.W. ‘The primary form 
is *voyxjo-s, whence, with the regular change of «j to oo (later o) and 
diphthongization (cp. ov0és and xoddos) came vodcos, (‘Stud.’ x. 
328.) 

94. vvé (st. vuxr) night, vixT-wp, vUKT-€po-s, VUKTEP-LVO-S, 
voxto-s nightly, vuxrepi-s night-bird. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 189 


Skt. nak, nék-ti-s night, nék-ta-m noctu. — Zd. nakh- 
turu or nakhtru nightly. 

Lat. now (st. nocti), noctu, nocturnu-s, noctua. 

Goth. naht-s, OHG. naht. 

Lith. nak-ti-s, ChSl. nos-t% night. 

Ol. in-noct, in-nocht hac nocte (Z?. 609). 

Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Benf. ii. 57, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 125.—Acc. to Linker ‘Jahn’s 
Jahrb.’ 89, 714, the full form of the nom. nocti-s is probably preserved 
in Enn. ‘Ann.’ v. 92 V., the stem-form which may be assumed in 
place of ver, in compounds like vukri-mdaykro-s (Roediger ‘de comp.’ 
p. 53). Even the Skt. form ndkti-s only occurs in a single passage in 
the Rgvéeda. The later Skt. mg and niga are (in spite of Pott W. 
i. 550, who is emphatically opposed by Ascoli ‘ Fonolog.’ 39) not to be 
separated from nak.— The root is clearly No. 93, since night is ‘no 
man’s friend.’ 

95. oiko-s (Fotko-s) house, ofk-éo-v, oik-ia, oiké-rn-s house- 
fellow, oiké-w dwell. 

Skt. vécd-s, véc-ja-m, véc-man house, vig (f.) dwelling- 
place, house, pl. vic-as men, subjects, vic¢-pdti-s 
lord of the house or community. — Zd. vic house, 
village, clan, vi¢-paiti chief of the clan. 

Lat. vicu-s (veicu-s), vic-inu-s. 

Goth. veih-s coun, aypds, OHG. wich dwelling-place, 
borough. 

ChSl. vist praedium, OPr. wais-pattin housewife, Lith. 
vesz-pat-s lord. 

Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott i. 2, 581, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 48, 98, Pictet 11. 238, 384, 
Corssen i°. 380.— F Boeotian in Fuxia (Ahr. ‘Aeol.’ 170), a trace of it 
may be seen in d-ouxo-s, and the Elic Boda. Lith. vész-pat-s lord ‘ only 
used of God and the king’ (Schleicher). Fick (‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ 111. 
168) establishes as a Gk. correlative of the shorter Skt. vig, Zd. 
vic ‘house,’ ‘clan,’ the word rpix4a-tk-es (= rpi-pudor), 7 177, an epithet of 
the Dorians. With rpixya- cp. the advs. rpiy9 and rpixa. The root is No. 
24¢. Acc.to Justi p. 281 vie in Zend means ‘a community of fifteen 
men and women.’ oixo-s then is ‘the house’ in the sense of the place 
and the sum of the people who-‘ come’ to live there (cp. Skt. gd-ja-s 
‘house,’ ‘ household,’ from rt. ga, gam, ‘ go’), déuo-s (No. 265) is the 
‘building’ — The Olr. fich ‘pagus,’ Corn. gwic are borrowed from 
the Latin (like fin=vinum). 

96. éxré eight, dydoo-s the eighth. — Skt. ashtau, ashtdn 
eight, ashta-md-s the eighth. — Zd. astan (n. asta) 


163 


190 BOOK II. 


eight, astema the eighth. —- Lat. octo, octavu-s. — 
Goth. ahtau. — Lith. asztini, ChSl. osmt. — OIr. 
oct, ocht(n-), Cymr. wyth. 

Bopp ‘GL,’ ‘Comp. Gr.’ 11. 75, Pott ‘ Zahlmethode’ 165. — The dual 
form in Skt., Gk., and Lat. is striking, on which see a conjecture by 
Grassmann ‘Wtb.’ 145, and also the weakening of the favourite xr in 
the Gk. éydoo-s (cp. p. 536), which seems to occur also in dydddt0v" Oucia 
mapa AOnvaiots TeAovpérn Onoet (Hesych.). Cp. Ascoli ‘Stud.’ ix. 358.— 
The Skt. sh is here evidently weakened from *.— We may just refer 
here to Ascoli’s investigations as to the original final letter of this 
and other numerals (‘Di un gruppo di desinenze, Instit. Lomb. 1868’), 
(Corssen ii?. 483). 


97. Root tek éx-o, melK-w, TEK-TE-w, TEK-Tw Comb, shear, 
mék-os, moKo-s fleece, wool. — Lat. pec-t-o, pect-en. 
— OHG. fahs crinis. — Lith. pész-ti pluck, pull hair. 


A European word. — Grimm. ‘ Gesch.’ i. 396, Pott W. ili. 179, Fick 
1°. 658. That sheep were plucked before they were shorn is shown by 
Hehn’ 469, hence the survival of the phrase ¢ipsa eixew (0 374). 


98. mwéXexu-s, wéXex-pa (Hesych.) axe, wedexxd-w hew, 
meAeK-i Cw cut off, méXeKKo-v, TEAEKKO-S axe-handle,* 
medek-as wood-pecker. — Skt. paract-s hatchet, 
battle-axe. 


Bopp ‘GL, Pott W. i. 500. The root is wed for an older par (cp. 
ChSl. pra-ti ‘ferire’), lengthened to medex, cp. mAakx, may No. 367. 
The double « is evidently for «fF, as in yAvxca yAuxirns (Hes.) ie. 
yauxfa. On the vowel that has been developed after the A see 
p. 730. 


99. mevK-n pine, mevx-év pine-grove, /TlevK-érior. — OHG. 
fiuh-ta. |[Germ. Fichte.| — Lith. puszi-s pine, pus- 
zyna-s pine-forest. | 


Pott ii’. 246, 285, Benf. ii. 76 f. — Fick‘ Or. u. Occ.’ iii. 115 shows 
that ai-ru-s ‘ pine,’ which I formerly with Benfey put here, is clearly 
analogous to the Skt. pitu-ddaru-s, the name of an Indian pine with 
the various forms putu-daru-s, pita-daru-s (daru ‘tree, cp. No. 275) 
and conjectures that the root in Skt. is pinv, piv (mi-ev No. 363) with 
the meaning ‘ trickle down’ (of the resin), properly ‘overflow.’ pi-nu-s 
(cp. Corssen 11%. 270) will then be only another nominal form of the 
same; also wicca together with pi-x and the Lith. piki-s, ChSl. pik-li 
‘pitch’ must have come from the same root. The relation of the Skt. 
pikkha (for piska 2)‘ slime,’ ‘ gum’ to these words has not yet been sufti- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 191 


ciently explained. It appears then that the % that appears in pix and 
can be inferred from miova for mi-x-1a is derivative. Cp. Hehn’® 259. 
100. Root mk mix-pd-s, mevk-edavd-s, mevK-dALpos bitter, 
sharp, €xe-7revkés (BéXos) pointed. 
Skt. pte-wna-s, adj. slanderous, treacherous, subst. 


traitor (?). 

OHG. féh-jan hate, féh-ida feud. [Germ. Fehde, 
Eng. foe. | 

Lith. pik-ta-s bad, pyk-ti to be angry, petk-ti despise, 
scold. 


Olt. dech (st. paica) enemy. 

Pott ii’. 600, W. iii. 182, Benf. ii. 79, Fick i°. 674 f., Stokes ‘ Beitr. 
vill. 317. — Connexion with Nos. 99 and 101 is probable. On v and t 
cp. what is said at No. 82. If the fundamental meaning is ‘ prick,’ as 
Corssen also supposes (17. 533), we shall be more inclined to connect 
the Lat. pig-e-t me (g for ¢ as in vigintt) than péjor, and certainly than 
peccare, which has not at all the notion of malice in it. 

101. Root mk zroik-iAo-s party-coloured, zroikiAA-@ make 
gay. 

Skt. pic (pie-a-mi) adorn, fashion, form, pie (f.) orna- 
ment, pec-as form, image, pécald-s artistically 
shaped, beautiful. 

Lat. ping-o, pic-tor, pic-tura. 

Goth. filu-faih-s modv-moikiros, OHG. féh variegatus. 165 

ChSlL. pistr% variegatus, pts-att write. 

Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 396, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 120, Pott W. ii. 2, 563. — 
According to the ‘ Ptsb. Wtb.’ the real meaning of the Skt. root seems 
to be ‘work at with a sharp tool,’ hence it is also used of the carving 
and cutting up of meat. And since the Romans as well use pingere 
with and without acu in the sense of embroider, connexion with 
Nos. 100 and 99 is probable. I give then ‘prick’ as the funda- 
mental meaning, whence all the other meanings may be easily 
derived. [Cp. AS. fah ‘foe, and fdh ‘varius, and Grimm ‘ Dict.’ 
s.v. fehde.| The Skt. pecas is used of gay stuff, pécas-hart of a 
webster or embroideress. In Zend too there occurs pica, paecaih in 
the sense of ‘form,’ ‘ornament.’ This word then tells us the fact in the 
history of Art that scratching was prior to colowring with the Indo- 
Germans ; the application of the word to writing in the old Persian 
ni-pis (Schweizer ‘Ztschr.’ xv. 315) and in Slavonic has its ana- 
logy in ypdd-o (No. 138). In Gk. too an inscribed law tablet was 
according to Pittakos (Diog. La. i. 77) motktdoy Eddov (kal bird Kpoicou 


192 BOOK II. 


(cpornbeis), tis dpxy peyiotn, 7) Tod TroukiAov, ey, EtAov, cnpaivey Tov vdpov). 
There is a good deal of doubt about the unattested Skt. piag, which 
along with other meanings has also that of ‘pingere.’ pingo: pic= 
mungo (No. 92): muk. — Lobeck ‘ Proleg.’ 113 annot. 1. 


102. Stem zAak, wAdé flat surface, mAdK-ivo-s made of 
planks, wAakois flat, (flat) cake. 
Lat. planc-a plate, slab, planc-u-s flat-footed, pla- 
nu-s flat, level. 
OHG. jlah. 
Lith. plasz-ta-kd flat hand, plékszcza-s (for ploksztja-s) 
flat. 


Pott W. ii. 186, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 397, Joh. Schmidt ‘Vocal.’ i. 75. — 
The root seems to be the same as that of mAnoow, cp. ‘ Ind. lect. Kil. 
aest. a. 1857’ p. vi., and No. 367 b. — pla-nu-s for plac-nu-s. Pott 
compares also lana (st. lanc), which I with Leo Meyer ‘Vergl. Gr.’ i. 
97 connect with dék-os, Aex-i-s, ex-dvy (in the Kown, Aaxdvn) ‘ dish.’ — 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 317 connects the Olr. lecc, gen. licce (st. planca?) 
‘flagstone, which must not be confounded with lia, gen. liac ‘stone’ 
(‘cos’ Z?. 259). 

108. Root tAek mAéx-@ plait, mrAéy-pwa, mAoK-H a plait, 
mA6k-apo-s lock (of hair). 

Skt. rt. park (pr-nd-k-mi) mix, mingle, connect, — 
prk-ti-s contact, d-prk mixedly, prac-na-s plait, 
basket (?). 

Lat. plec-t-o, am-plec-t-or, plic-o, du-plex. 

Goth. flah-t-6m, dat. pl. tAéypact, fal-th-a mriace, 
OHG. flih-tu, flah-s flax. 

ChSIl. ple-t-a I plait. 

Bopp ‘G1., Benf. ii. 97, Fick 1°. 681, Pott W. 111. 190. — The use for 
describing exclusively plaiting and folding is confined to the Euro- 
pean languages, while the Skt. words have a more general meaning. — 

166 Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 120. — Perhaps aépxo-s ‘ net’ belongs here too, with 
older p for \ with which Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 378 connects Parca (cp. 
K\w6o) as spinner of the thread of fate. Ebel ‘ Ztschr. vi. 217 com- 
pares mépkn-s ‘a ring,’ with the OHG. felga. In the ChSl. pletg and 
the Goth. faltha alike the guttural is forced out. —TI fail to see any 
connexion with mAlccec Oar ‘ stride,’ mAryds ‘interfeminium, mAlé Bjya. — 
Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 420 connects also pldg-a ‘net, ‘snare,’ ‘ carpet,’ 
Corssen 1°. 35 com-pe-sco for com-per-sco. 


104. mropko-s pig. — Lat. porcu-s, Umbr. purka, porea. — 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 193 


OHG. farah. [AS. fearh, Eng. farrow.|— Lith. 
parsza-s pig, sucking-pig, ChSl. prase. — Olr. 
ore pig. 

Kuhn in Web. ‘Ind. Stud.’ i. 342, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 37, Schleicher 
‘Ksl.’ 121, Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 7. — mépxo-s is attested to be a Gk. 
word by Varro L. L. v. $97 Mill. — Pictet ii. 82 compares the OHG. 
furh ‘ farrow’ with the Lat. porca in the sense of ‘ field-bed,’ ‘ ridge 
between two furrows’ (according to Rhys ‘ Rev. Celt.’ i. 352 we may 
add the OCymr. rec ‘sulco’ Z?. 1063), going to the notion of ‘ rooting 
up’ for the connexion between the two, a notion which however finds 
no support in the Skt. park (No. 103). Fick ‘Ztschr.’ xviii. 413.—A 
European word. 

105. ckxatd-s left, cxaid-rn-s, cxato-cvvn left-handedness. 
— Lat. scaevu-s, scaevi-ta-s, Scaevola, scaeva (Fest. 
p- 325). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Benf. i. 619, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 138, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 
22. Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 993, where the Low-German scheef, the High- 
German scheib, scheb (obliquus) and the Slov. sévi, po-sevi ‘ slanting’ 
are compared. The primitive form skavja-s is probably related to 
oxavpo-s (with projecting ankles) and the Lat. scawru-s. About the 
last-mentioned word Corssen i?. 350 has a different view. — The 

synonymous words from Skt. (savja-s=Zd. havja) and ChSl. (su7) 
cannot easily be connected with the Gk. and Latin words. 
106. Stem ckadt ckddrow, omdAag, a-orddag mole. 
Lat. scalp-o scratch, engrave, scalp-ru-m, talp-a mole. 
OHG. sceliva scraphia, siliqua. 
Lith. sklemp-iu cut into (2). 

Pott i. 140.—On the prothetic a see Lob. ‘ Elem.’ i. 15, who must 
be right in comparing oxdAdo. oxatt: oKatk=Fedrr (€Aropa): Fer, 
Bor.—talp-a must be for stalp-a. Cp. pp. 552 and 700 and No, 521.— 
Fick i°, 811 puts koddrrw (xdragos, hence with aspirated 7) with scalpo.. 
Cp. Corssen i”. 547. 

107. oxdévd-ado-v, cxavdddn-Opo-v trap-stick. 
Skt. skand (skdnd-a-mi) dart, leap, leap upon, pra- 
skand leap forth. 
Lat. scand-o, de-scend-o. 
Olr. ses-caind (perf.) he leapt. 

Pott i. 249, Bopp ‘ Gl.’—Since the Skt. skand also means ‘ cadere,’ 

‘ elabi,’ ‘ effluere,’ and the root seems to have as its primitive meaning 
that of ‘swift, darting movement,’ the Lith. skénd-u ‘sink down’ may 
O 


194 BOOK Il. 


possibly belong here. But with oxd¢o (No. 573) there is no connexion, 
nor with cyd¢ew ‘set free, ‘let go,’ ‘split, which Fick 1°. 806 puts 
along with these words. — Ascoli ‘ Lautl.’ p. 28. 
167 108. Root ckan oxym-7T-@ support, Dor. oxd-mos, cKyT- 
Tpo-v, okyTr-wv staff, oxn7m-76-s flash of lightning. 
Lat. scdp-u-s shaft, scip-io staff, scdp-ae twigs, 
scdp-u-s stalk, scop-io stalk, scam-nu-m bench. 
ON. skap-t, OHG. scaf-t hastile (?). 

Benf. i. 655, who compares the Skt. skabh, skambh ‘fulcire’ in in- 
fringement of the phonetic laws. Pott W. v. 213. I cannot agree 
with Benfey and Kuhn’s extensive combinations (‘ Ztschr.’ i. 139, iv. 
32), according to which ox stands for or.— A weaker form of the root 
18 okim, oxy, Whence okipumn-t-o, oxiz-wv, to which scip-to comes near. — 
Corssen i”. 401, 128.—Fick 1°. 807 separates the Teutonic words, which 
he puts with skaban. 

109. Root ckan oxd7-7-@ dig, cxam-dvn spade, cKxdrr-e- 
To-s, Ka7reTo-s ditch. 
ChSl. kop-a-tt fodere, Lith. kdp-a-s grave-mound, 
OPr. enkop-t-s buried. 

Pott i?. 141, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 95, Benf. i. 192, Fick i°. 807.— On the 
initial letter Lob. ‘El.’ i. 125. The ¢ in éoxada, éeoxadny, cxagdn, cxapopy 
or xapopn (fox) is an after-formation ; the meanings ‘dig’ and ‘hollow 
out’ are united in oxddos, which means in Hes. ”Epy. 570 ‘ digging,’ 
but usually like oxapy ‘a hollow.’ — Benf. ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 52 connects 
with this root not only oxén-ap-vo-v ‘ carpenter’s axe’ (No. 68 b), but 
also the Lat. scab-o (scaber, scab-ies) with weakening of p to 6. Since 
Corssen 1%, 128 actually quotes the form scapres, and the meaning 
‘torn, rough, scratched,’ might well arise from the original idea of the 
root, this combination may be correct. — On another side—since a p 
at the end of a root sometimes escapes the regular change—is suggested 
the comparison of the Teutonic words: Schaff’ (OS. skap), Goth. skip 
mAoiov (cp. cxag-os) with the common idea of ‘something hollowed out’ 
(cp. koida vpes). Op. No. 56. They remind us specially of cxa¢-io-v, 
oxdp-n ‘fan.’ Jurmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 389 connects with them even the 
Goth. ga-skap-jan (Germ. schaffen ‘make’), OHG. sceffan (scoop out) 
and MHG. schuofe, Germ. Schaufel ‘shovel.’ Schaffen accordingly 
would mean to prepare by hollowing out. Cp. Pictet ii. 85. Zimmer 
‘Suff.a’ p. 299. [Are not OE. skep or skip ‘a round basket’ or ‘a 
beehive,’ AS. scep or sceop, LG. schapp, and the ME. scoop also akin 1] 


110. Stem cxapt cKoép gen. cKat-ds, oxwp-ia dross. — 
Skt. ava-skara-s excrement. — Lat. sterc-us, ster- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 195 


quiliniu-m. -— AS. skearn dung. — ChSl. skordi-na 
inquinamentum, skar-ed-ovati se BdeditTEc Oat. — 
Cymr. ysgarth excretion. 

Fick ii’. 269, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 317. The stem-form is cxapr, 
whence came oxar like jar from yrapr: in the nom. and acc. length- 
ening occurred on account of its being a monosyllable. — The change 
into sterc, denied by Corssen i’. 178, is after the pattern of the Gk. 
orepy-dvo-s korpav Hesych., where « is softened to y. The meaning of 
oxwp-ia is to be seen also in the Lat. stercus ferri. The root is skar 
‘depart,’ ‘separate ’ (No. 76).— The Skt. edkrt is better separated from 
these words (cp. No. 28). But we shall see directly in No. 111 an unmis- 
takeable example of an interchange of organ similar to that which we here 
suppose to have taken place between the stems skart and stark. — The 168 
old guttural has survived in the Lat. mus-cer-da, su-cer-da. Cp. p. 697. 

111. Root cxen oKém-T-0-pal spy, cKom-7, oxom-1dé watch- 
tower, okd7-edo-s rock (?), oxom-6-5 a spy, aim, 
oxo owl. 

Skt. spa¢ (pac-ja-mi) look, spac, spaca-s spy, watch- 
man. — Zd. epa¢ look at, guard, gpa¢ a spy. 

Lat. spec spec-i-o (spic-i-0), con-spic-i-o, spec-ula, 
spec-ulu-m, spec-to. 

OHG. spéh-6-m, spdh-i prudens, callidus. 

ChSl. pas-ti tend, graze, pis-% dog. 

Bopp ‘Gl. s.v. pag, Pott W. i. 2, 543, Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 11, 
Miklos. ‘Lex.’ 557.—The metathesis of the organ is unmistakeable, the 
fundamental meaning is ‘spy. On Homer’s axémedos (mpoBdjjrt oKo- 
méA@), Which did not yet mean ‘ cliff, see Doederlein ‘Gl.’ 2358.—cxop 
so called from its sharp sight, oxom-r-w perhaps from a mocking glance 
(Fick i%. 809 otherwise). Athen. xiv. 629 f. is important for the con- 
nexion of cco with the rt. cxer—oxow, oxamevpa. jy O€ 6 coxa Tov 
amrookoTOvvT@Y TO OXHpA, akpav THY XElpa Vmep TOU peT@moV KEKUPT@KOT@Y. — 
Corssen i%. 379 places here the Lat. pic-us, pic-a along with other 
names of birds. 

112. oxi-é shade, oxia-pd-s shady, oxid-w overshadow, 
oxid-s (st. cxiad) awning. 

Skt. Khaya for skaja shade, glimmering. 

OS. ski-mo, MHG. schi-me, sche-me shade. ; 
ChSl. stént shade, Lith. sze-szé-li-s shade, shadow. 
Olr. scéath scutum (st. scaita), OArem. scort (Z?. 97). 

Bopp ‘GL. Pott i’. 243, Benf. i. 610, Miklosich ‘Lex.,’ Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ villi. 317. — Hesych.. has the forms oxo: okorewd, oxordr® 

0 2 


196 BOOK ITI. 


gvoKov, okoidwov' oxiddiov, whence we may infer a lost form oxoa 
which came from skaj& (cxoia). I once thought the root to be 
ski, but Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 385 points out that we could arrive 
from ska as well at oxi-d (cp. rt. me by the side of mo No. 371, xpivo 
No. 76) and even at oxi-po-v ‘umbrella,’ cxi-po-s ‘country covered 
with vegetation’ (Boeckh’s note to ‘C. I. Gr.’ iii. p. 706). Con- 
sequently I now refer with him and Leo Meyer ‘Vergl. Gr.’ 1. 340, 
both these words and: oxy-vy ‘ tent,’ oxd-ros ‘ darkness’ (cp. xv-ros), OIr. 
scdth ‘ shade,’ Goth. skadu-s, and with determinative d the Skt. Khad 
‘cover, Khdt-tra-m ‘umbrella, with formative p cké--as ‘ protection’ 
with its related words (p. 705) all to the rt. ska. Corssen (and also 
Benfey ‘Or. u. Occ.’ ii. 569) is no doubt right in connecting the Lat. 
ca-sa (for scad-ta), cas-sis ‘helmet’ and cas-tru-m (Umbr. castru-o, 
Osc. castro-us, Aufr. and Kirchh. ii. 159) in the sense of ‘means of 
defence’ with the secondary rt. skad (‘ Beitr.’ 449).— The Iv. cathir gen. 
cathrach ‘town,’ which Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 317 identifies with castrum, 
is formed like nathir gen. nathrach ‘ water-snake,’ and points to a root 
syllable ca or ska, certainly not skad. Cp. Fick i°. 516. — With the 
presumable skaja we may perhaps connect cae-cu-s, Goth. hath-s, Oly. 
cdech ‘blind, as it were *oxo-w-xd-s ‘shady,’ ‘dark,’ while co-cle(t)-s 
may be regarded as derived from a diminutive sco-cu-lu-s (cp. Redt- 
culu-s): (cp. Spiegel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 264, otherwise Pott ii? 446). Cp. 
Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 263. 

169 118. Root cku cxev-7 clothing, cxed-os furniture, cxevg-¢-o 
prepare, equip — oxd-t-o-s, Kv-7-o-s skin, é7i- 
oxt-vio-v the skin of the brow. 

Skt. sku (sku-nd-mi) cover, overwhelm. 

Lat. ob-scii-ru-s, scti-tu-m, ct%-ti-s. 

AS. sct-a, sct-va umbra, caligo, ON. sky (Eng. sky) 
cloud-covering, heaven, OHG. skiu-ra receptacu- 
lum, AS. hid hide. 

WhRuss. skw-ra skin, hide, ChSl. sti-t% aozis. 

OIr. ced cloud. | 

Pott W. i. 1354, Benf.i. 611, Pictet ii. 224, Briickner ‘ Slay. Fremd- 
worter des Litauischen’ 133. — The connexion of oxi-r-o-s, Kv-r-0-s 
(eyxuri), cu-ti-s is unmistakeable (cp. No. 573); on the r see ‘ Ztschr.’ 
iv. 215. «v-r-os ‘a hollow’ belongs to No. 79. — cxido-» ‘ equipment’ 
presents difficulties: it is distinct from oxvdo-v ‘ hide’ and can no more 
be separated from spoliu-m than from ovAd-o (cp. oxvdevw) while oxvdd-@ 
(cover) again resembles our root in sound. Cp. Kuhn iv. 35, Corssen i®. 
525, who regards the liquids in these words as radical, and accordingly 
gives skur, oxvd as the root. — Cp. No. 112. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 197 


114. Root ckvdA cxddAA@ pull off, flay, oxdA-wa a pulling 
off, ko-cxvA-pdria leather-parings. 
Lat. qui-squil-iae. 

Pott W. ii. 1, 699, Benf. i. 200.— Cp. No. 113 and rt. oxad (under 
No. 106), cxod too appears as the root with related meanings: oxdéA-v- 
Opo-s ‘lopped,’ ‘ poor,’ again without o xddo-s ‘ mutilated,’ coAov-«, and 
with formative m cxohvm-t-o ‘lop,’ oxddoy ‘stake’ (?). Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 
450, 1’. 524, Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 380.—xooxvApadria according to Hesych. 
ta tay Bupody mepikoppdria, quisquiliae according to Fest. p. 257, 
‘dici putantur quidquid ex arboribus minutis surculorum foliorumve 
cadit.’ | 

115. daéAx-n-s rib of a ship, €u-padrxKd-w bind up, clasp 
round, poAxko-s bow-legged. 
Lat. fala (st. falc), flec-t-o, falc-o (2). 

Buttm. ‘Lexil.’ 1. 245 where the traditional meaning of qodxé-s 
(only in B 217) springing from an absurd etymology is satisfactorily 
refuted. — dadxy-s according to Pollux i. 85 76 rH oreipa mpoondovpevor, 
i.e. ‘the curved timbers nailed to the keel-beams,’ and forming the 
rounded hold of the ship.— ¢u¢@arkoupévors, according to Suid. (ed. Bernh. 
li. 222) mepuremdeypévors, ‘bound round with twined cords,’ so that 
godkd-s must mean ‘ bow-legged.’— The Lat. falcones rests on the same 
footing as it is explained by Paul. 88 ‘dicuntur quorum digiti pol- 
lices in pedibus intra sunt curvati, a similitudine falcis’ (cp. Loewe 
‘Prodrom.’ 390), also fala.— We are reminded also of the OHG. balco 
‘beam, but the c is not according to rule. [See Grimm ‘ Dict.’ 
ii. 1089.] 


i 


Greek y corresponds to Indo-Germanic g. In Sanskrit it is 
represented by g and g, in Zend by g, gh, j, 2, zh, in Latin by 
g, in Gothic by &, in Church-Slavonic by g, 2, @, in Lithuanian 
by g, 2, in Old Irish by g, seldom by 6.— On the traces of two 
different g’s see p. 87. 

116. dy-os guilt, object of awe, év-ay-7s accursed, d-yto-s 
papos, ay-ys cursed. 
Skt. dg-as vexation, offence. 

Benf. i. 149, Bopp ‘ Gl.’ — At both these places the entirely different 

ghas is wrongly compared (rt. dx No. 166).—The spiritus lenis of dyos 


198 BOOK II. 


is not merely Ionic, but is now read in Thucydides and in other 
authors; that dysos with the meaning piapds has the smooth breathing 
is expressly stated in the ‘E. M.’s.v. In dyis in Hipponax emer OF 
Bergk® és of péev dyéi Bourah xatnpaovro the spir. asp. is of doubtful 
authority. — With the rt. a4y=Skt. jag (No. 118) there is no relation- 
ship. — Delbriick calls my attention to the fact that as in Thue. i. 
126 we have dyos ris cod, so in Skt. we have dévanam agas, 1. e. 


tav beay a ayos. 


117. Root ér dy-o, ay-ivé-o drive, lead, dy-6-s, &k-Twp 
leader, dy-wy contest, ay-vid street, dy-po-s line, 
swathe, éy-pa the chase. 

Skt. ag (dg-G-mi) go, drive, swing, agd-s driver, 
ag-ird-s agile, dg-man train, ag-md-s way, train, 
ag-t-s race. — Zd. az lead, drive. 

Lat. ag-o, ag-men, ag-ili-s, amb-ag-és, ac-tor, ac-tu-s, 
ac-ti-o. 

ON. ak-a vehere, vehi. 

Olr. ato-m-aig adigit me (Z?. 480), dg (gen. dga) 
strife, dm (st. agmen) manus hostium. 


Bopp ‘Gl. Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 408, Pictet ii. 6, Pott W. ii. 364, Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 318.—The agreement in the developement of the mean- 
ing is remarkable. Op. especially dj-i-s and dy-av, Skt. ag-i-m dg-ami 
‘IT run a race,’ like the Gk. éoprnv, 6voiav ayo, Lat. diem festum, pacem 
ago, and again the Lat. agon-ia ‘beast for sacrifice,’ agon-iu-m ‘festival,’ 
the Marsian agine Jovias ‘festival of Jovia’ according to Corssen 
‘Ztschr.’ ix. 147. Doubt has been thrown on the correspondence of 
aypa along with dypeva, aypéw, fo-ypé-w and the Zd. azra by Spiegel 
‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 194. But the Lat. ind-dgo, ind-aga-re certainly start 
with the notion of driving wild beasts. In the Homeric aypee=aye 
appears the relationship to the stem-verb, while this verb itself when 
used as in Soph. ‘ Ant.’ 344 girov dpvidev audiBadrov ayer, and in the 
phrase dyew kai pepew, and in the poetical use of agere, comes very near 
the meaning ‘hunt.’ The gloss dypesav is explained by Hesych. 
simply by @npevtys. It is only in avr-dype-ro-s, madw-dype-to-s, 
Kpe-dypa, mup-dypa that the meaning has become general. —A con- 
sideration of such words as orpar-nyd-s, dpy-nyd-s, and of the use of 

171 nyeicba, Hyepor, especially in Homer, will prevent us from separating 
this word from the rt. dy. On the spir. asp. see p. 688. The post- 
Homeric meaning of jyeioOac ‘consider,’ ‘think’ is shared by the 
primitive dy as well as by duco. It arrives at it through the notion 
of ‘poising,’ ‘weighing,’ whence the Lat. agina ‘scapus trutinae,’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 199 


ex-tg-ere, ex-a(g)-men, also ew-ig-uu-s, which thus means properly 
‘exact, and this use is quite common: jye rpraxociovs Saperkovs and 
metaphorically in Soph. ‘El.’ 119 potvn yap ayew ovkért o@Kd AUmns aytip- 
porov axOos. We may add agu-s, so that prvas dgwos properly =pvav 
ayov ‘having the weight of a mina.’ There was no need at all for the 
Skt. sa which Pott (11". 335) conjured up, as he might have seen from 
dvr-afuo-s. aya-v ‘very, literally ‘drawing,’ with the stem-form 
aya preserved in dy-nvwp (cp. Roediger ‘Comp.’ p. 4) belongs to the 
same root. 

118. Root Gr &¢-o-war fear, dy-.0o-s holy, ay-vé-s pure, 
ayiCw, €v-ayi¢w consecrate, offer up.—dy-os con- 
secration, sacrifice. 

Skt. jag (yag-d-mi) reverence, consecrate, sacrifice, 
jag-us awe, consecration, jag-as, jag-id-s sacri- 
fice, yag-ja-s venerable. — Zd. yaz to worship, 
sacrifice, yaz-u lofty, sublime. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iii. 575.—Bayvos péyas in Hesych. has nothing to 
do with this root: nor do I with Benfey i. 434 ff. consider the Skt. 
jag and bhag to be the same root. Still less has the Lat. sacer, sancio 
anything to do with dys. —TI write dy-os (Hesych. dynopa bvoias) as 
distinguished from dyos ‘curse’ (No. 116) with Hermann on Aesch. 
‘Choeph.’ 149; so too Soph. ‘Antig.” 775 as dyos. 


119. dypo-s field. --- Skt. dgra-s surface, plain. — Lat. ager 
(st. agro). — Goth. akr-s field (acre). 


Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 408, P. W., where connexion with the rt. ag is con- 
jectured. The Skt. word stands in the Vedas generally for the plain 
as opposed to the mountains. So that perhaps Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iu. 
334 and Pictet 1. 79 are right in thinking that dypdés is so named ‘a 
pecore agendo,’ like the German 7'rift ‘pasturage’ from treiben ‘to 
drive. The general meaning of ‘country,’ ‘ plain,’ is often to be seen 
in dypés too, as also in its derivative dypio-s=Skt. agrja-s ‘lying in 
the plain,’ and its meaning of ‘ wild,’ which occurs as early as Homer, 
is a striking evidence of the Greek’s view of life. 


120. aié (st. aly) goat, aiy-i-s goatskin, aly-éy goat-stall, 
aty-aypo-s chamois. 
Skt. agd-s buck, aga she-goat, dimin. agakd, agika. 
Lith. oZy-s he-goat, o2-kd she-goat. 
Olr. ag allaid cervus (wild-buck), pl. aige deer. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. iii. 136, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 98, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
viii. 318, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 433, who will not hold the above words 


200 BOOK II. 


connected ‘until the a is explained.’ I explain it by epenthesis, 
starting from a stem dy:, which we may give as a feminine by the side 
of the Skt. aga, i.e. aga (cp. p. 678). So Benf. ‘Ztschr, viii. 75, Pott 
ix. 175. The nom. aié may be derived straight from aty-s with loss 
of «; the stem aiy is apparently preserved in aiyi-Boro-s (Roediger 
‘Comp.’ 55). It is not so very surprising that aig should then be used 

172 as a masculine as well, after the consciousness of its origin had dis- 
appeared. — The old derivation from dicc (st. dix) is false, the probable 
one is that from the rt. dy, cp. Skt. agird-s =ag-tli-s (P. W.).—Meineke’s 
and M.Schmidt’s emendation of Hesych. Baikav* atya (‘Ztschr.’ xii. 216) 
has therefore no foundation.—It should be noticed with regard to the 
use of aiyis that the Skt. agina-m means ‘skin’ in general=ChSl. 
azno, jazno ‘skin,’ ‘ leather’ (Fick 1°. 479). 

121. Root dpr dpy-6-s, apy-j-s (st. dpynt), adpy-evvé-s, 
apy-tvo-el-s, apyu-go-s bright, white, dpyu-po-s 
silver, épy-iAo-s white clay. 

Skt. drg-una-s whitish, bright, rag-atd-s white, 
ragatd-m silver, rt. rag (rag-G-mi) shine. 

Lat. argu-o I make clear, argii-tu-s clear, plain, 
argentu-m, Osc. arag-eto-m silver, arg-illa white 
clay. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ Benf. i. 104, Pott W. ii. 582, where dpyvgo-s with 
dpyvde-o-s 1s rightly referred to the rt. da=Skt. bd ‘shine. The 
position of the vowel in Skt. fluctuates, and it is doubled in the 
Osc. arag-eto-m and in the Zend erezata of similar meaning. —Nitzch 
on 8 11 recognized that kives mé8das dpyoi (apyimodes) or apyot simply in 
the sense of ‘swift-footed’ is connected with the idea of ‘ whiteness’ 
by means of that of ‘gleaming’ (uappapvyai rodav). So pedibus argu- 
tarver (Titin. v. 28 Ribbeck) is used of the feet of a man walking. — 
Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 338.—Cp. No. 154.—The Olt. arget, Cymr. artant 
are borrowed from Latin, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 140. 

122. Root rav, raf yad-po-s proud, ya-i-w rejoice, yé- 
yn-0-a, yn-9€-w, yn-0-os, ynO-octvn joy, yn8o- 
auvo-s glad, yd-vv-pal rejoice, ydv-os gayness, 
splendour. 

Lat. gau (Enn. Annal. 451), gau-d-eo, gavi-su-s, 
gaud-iu-m. 

ON. kd-t-r laetus. 

Pott W.1. 741, Benf. ii. 114, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 399.—The connexion 
of these words is denied by Dietrich ‘Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 81, 38, and 
Hugo Weber ‘Etymol. Untersuch.’ 93. Both assume a rt. ya with a 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 201 


secondary rt. yav like dav from ga (No. 407), and for the other words 
yav. Since, however, we find in the related languages no support for 
these supposed roots, and are able to support by analogies all the 
changes of sound, I hold to my own view. yaf-t-o becomes ya-i- as 
kaF-i-« becomes xa-i-o (No. 44), yaF-vv-yat yd-vu-pat as KAofF-vi-s Kdd-ve-s 
(No. 61). ydvos (with yavdw ‘shine’) can have been formed by the 
suffix -vos like ¢@-vos, ty-vos.—It is not improbable that d-yav-d-s, 
d-yav-pé-s ‘proud,’ d-~ya-to-par and dya-pat with ayn ‘astonishment’ are 
related, and from these again dydA\o, dyavd-s, etc. seem not far re- 
moved, though I grant they admit of other explanations (H. Weber 
p. 49, Fick i. 561).-—Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viti. 318 adds the gloss guazre. 
itasal (noble). 


128. Stem yadaxr (nom. yédAa) milk, Homeric yAdy-os, 
yara-0n-vd-s sucking milk, yad-jv7n a calm (?). 
Lat. st. lact, nom. lac, OLat. lacte. 


These words are among those which, in spite of their incontestable 
connexion, offer great obstacles to analysis. As to their origin there 
are four suppositions of the most opposite character.—(1) Bopp ‘ Comp. 
Gram.’ i. 254 regards ya-Aaxr as a compound from the Skt. stem gav 
(=Gk. Bof No. 644), but can give no satisfactory explanation of the 
second half of the word. This line is taken up by Max Miiller 
*Ztschr.’ xil. 27, Pictet ii. 29, who go on each in a different way, 
M. M. to explain it by the Skt. régas, which usually means ‘ atmo- 
sphere,’ and is by some compared with the Gk. épeBos, Pictet by Adfw 
a by-form of Aau8dve, though that has no trace of a y in the root. 
There is moreover this additional objection, that the stem gav has 
always in the two classical languages a 6, and that the two words do 
not mean ‘cow’s milk’ exclusively.—(2) Pott ii’. 204, 311, ‘Beitr.’ i. 
54, W.1. 759 (Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 326) tries to arrive at the root of 
apedy- (No. 150); making mlag become blag, and this glag (yAdy-os) 
arriving thus at an agreement with the Goth. mzluk-s (ChSl. mléko 
borrowed thence ?). But there is no complete analogy for such trans- 
ition of sound, and the very ancient form yada, where there was nothing 
to prevent the pronunciation pada, would remain unexplained. — 
(3) Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xi. 436 gives BdeAAcw ‘suck,’ ‘milk,’ as the 
source of the word, and refers it to a rt. gal. But this root with such 
a meaning is nowhere to be seen.—(4) Hugo Weber in his ‘Et. Forsch.’ 
discusses thoroughly all the connected forms, and gives as the rt. yaa, 
meaning ‘to be clear,’ ‘to shine. (Cp. No. 133b.) Since yad-nvy 
(meaning also ‘ plumbago’), yeA-da, yeA-civ (Adurew avdetv Hesych.), Lat. 
gel-u, perhaps even the Skt. gala-m ‘water, with a train of other 
words, can without violence be explained from such a root, this 


173 


202 BOOK II. 


explanation is not improbable. But perhaps Brunnhofer’s derivation 
(in his ‘Téa, Zac, Aarau 1871) is after all a more likely one. He refers 
the word to the rt. gar ‘swallow,’ ‘drink’ (ep. No. 643), to which, he says, 
yapo-s ‘pap’ belongs. — According to this view the Olr. lact ‘ milk,’ 
Cymr. faith must be borrowed, since there is no clear instance of the 
loss of a g in Irish.—From the rt. yad came the rare form yad-ar 
(Pherekr. in Meineke’s ‘Com.’ 11. 300 v. 18 ydAare according to Dind.) 
like ad-ar from the rt. dd (No. 657), from the lengthened stem yAax (cp. 
glac-te-s) yAak-avtes (wectot yddaxtros Hesych.), yAakkd-v (yahabnvov ib.), 
with softening of the final « to y yAdy-os. ‘yadaxr- (for yAakr cp. yAakt-o- 
payor) may be referred like lact (for glact) to glac-te (cp. Lat. ré-ti nom. 
vé-te). yada-6n-vd-s is compounded with the rt. de (No. 309). 

124, Hom. yadéw-s ydédos yadoovn (Suid.) husband’s 

sister. — Lat. glés. — ChSl. zliva glos. 

Pott 4. 131, Kuhn in Weber's ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 328, Miklosich ‘ Lex.’ 
— Perhaps the Phrygian form yeAapos (adeApod yun Hesych.) mentioned 
by Nauck (‘ Aristoph. Byz.’ 136) is also related. — yddos according to 
Pollux i. 32 4 rod avdpds adekpy th ekeivov yuvacxi. glds according 
to Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 98 and Charisius p. 42, 10 K. only vir soror, and so 
also in the glossae Philoxeni (Loewe ‘ Prodr.’ 257), but according to 
Nonius p. 557 M. also fratris uwor. For the Gk. word galva-s may 
be given as the primitive form, the Lat. glés gen. gloris has a suffix in 
s like flds, rds.— The Skt. sjald-s (so P. W., it is better written so than 

174 gjdla-s) uxoris frater, which has been thought connected, has nothing 
to do with this root.— Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 319, and Pictet ii. 375 are 
for identifying the root of yadéws, probably yad (cp. No. 123) in the 
meaning of ‘be bright,’ by a comparison of other flattering appella- 
tions given to relations by marriage (belle swur). Cp. No. 257. 

125. yaud-4, yaud-nrAy jaw, jaws, youdo-s tooth, plug, 
youd-io-s cheek-tooth. 
Skt. gambha-s teeth, mouth, jaws, gdmblya-s tooth, 
gabh (gabh-é) or gambh-é snap at. 
ChSl. zqb-% tooth, Lith. gémbe hook in the wall. 

Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 110.—Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ i. 123 ff, where a good 
many other words are discussed, especially from the Teutonic lan- 
guages, which may with more or less probability be brought under © 
this head. I will only mention the comparison of the old Saxon 
camb ‘comb’ and of the Gk. yépupa, which has clearly ‘dam’ as its 
first meaning. On the numerous dialectic varieties of the word cp. 
Beermann ‘de dial. Boeot.’ Stud. ix. 58. The names of the towns I'éuqot 
and the Lat. Gabii also suggest themselves. — Benf. uu. 116.— Cp. 
No. 423. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 203 


125 b. Root rap ydép-yapa heap, yap-yaipew swarm, 
a-yeipey collect, assemble, ayopdé assembly, 
place of assembly, market, @yuvpi-s assembly, 
aytp-Tn-s collector, beggar. 

Skt. gar (gdr-d-mi) come near, gra-ma-s village, 
community. 

Lat. grea (st. gre-g), é-greg-iu-s, greg-a-tim. 

Olr. graig equitium. 

Fick 1°. 566, Stokes ‘Ir. Gloss.’ 742, ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 215, Brugman 
‘Stud.’ vu. 349, Van. 208. — ydpyapa only in wWappaxootoydpyapa 
Aristoph. ‘Ach.’ 3 with the schol., also yépyepa woAdd (Hesych. and 
Varro L. L. v. 76). In grex we have a clear instance of broken re- 
duplication. — dyéhy, in virtue of its ¢« (cp. vep-éAn, Oup-édn), belongs 
rather to the rt. dy (No. 117).— Leo Meyer (‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 411) and 
Froehde (Bezzenb. ‘Beitr.’ iii. 131) add Skt. gand-s for *gar-nu-s 
‘crowd.’ 

126. yaornp (st. yaorep) belly, yéorpa belly of a jug or 
cask, — Skt. gathdra-s belly (?). — Lat. venter (for 
gventer (?) ).—Goth. quithu-s belly, stomach, womb, 
laus-quithr-s sober. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott i”. 106, 11. 554, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 435, where the 
Skt. gas ‘swallow’ is taken as the root, though the Ptsb. W. knows 
nothing of such a word. — Corssen ‘ Beitr.” 57.—v through gv from 
g as in ven-to (No. 634), vor-o=Skt. gar (No. 643). St. ya-o-rep 
at all events comes from a root in s, and agrees in this with the 
Teutonic wans-t, while venter on the other hand shows no trace of an 
s.— Hesychius’s gloss yévrep 7 xowia looks as if the Lat. venter were 
referred to.— The Skt. th seems to stand for st. Leo Meyer ‘Vgl. Gr.’ 
i. 37.— Brugman ‘Stud.’ ix. 272 holds the Skt. word to be quite 
distinct, and assumes the root to be gar-s. 

127. yavdd-s pail, pitcher, yaidAo-s merchant-ship. — 
Skt. gdla-s ball, gold, gola-m water-jug in the 
shape of a ball. 

Benf. ii. 292, where all sorts of other words are given. The origin 175 
is doubtful, perhaps it is related to yoy-yvAo-s ‘round’ and the Skt. 
gult ‘ball,’ ‘pill” Since 6=aw, there is nothing in the sounds against 
this connexion, but the relation of the meanings is not yet quite clear. 
— Fick 1°. 76. 

127b. yéAye-s head of garlic. — Skt. grfig-ana-s a kind of 
garlic. 


204 BOOK II. 


Pictet i. 299, where is given the Erse gairg-ean of the same 
meaning. The identity of yeAy and grig, i.e. garng, can hardly be 
denied: the suffix varies; in Gk. it is sometimes « (gen. yéAyeos), 
sometimes 16 (yeAy:bos), sometimes 1d (yéAys8os). 


128. Root rev, ra é~yev-6-punv, yi-yv-o-uat become, yelv- 
o-war am born, yév-os race, yev-e-r7p begetter, 
fem. yev-é-Telpa, yév-€-ol-s Origin, yuy-7 woman. 
— yvH-clo-¢ genuine. 

Skt. gan (gdn-d-mi and gd-gan-mi) beget, ga-j-é 
nascor, gan-as being, gan-us race, gan-i-ta (st. 
ganitar) genitor, gdn-i-trt genetrix, gd-ti-s birth, 
stem, Ved. gnd@ later gan-~ woman.—Zd. zan 
beget, ghena woman. 

Lat. gen gi-gn-o, gen-ut, gen-us, gen-1-tor, gen-e-tri-x, 
gen(t)-s, gna-sc-o0-1", gen-er, gen-iu-s — natura. 

Goth. kein-an (also kijan) sprout, kun-i race, quin-0d, 
quén-s (st. quéni) @ndrAv-s, OHG. chind proles, 
chnuat natura. 

OPrus. ganna, ChSl. zena wife, Lith. gen-ti-s relation, 
genté (st. genter) husband’s brother's wife. 

Olr. ad-gainemmar renascimur, perf. ro génair natus 
est, gein birth, in-gen daughter, Cymr. gent nasci, 
Olr. ben yuvy, Corn. ben, benen sponsa. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 17, Benf. ii. 116 f. 201, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 
161.—The forms yev and ya (yeyads, yeydaor, yi-ya(vr)-s) stand side by 
side like the Skt. gan and ga. By metathesis there arose xaci-ynto-s, 
yrn-cvo-s (cp. Skt. gat-ja-s ‘noble,’ ‘ genuine,’ Fick i*. 67) also the Lat. 
gna-sc-o-r, but yi-yvo-yar and gi-gn-o, by reduplication and expulsion 
of the ¢, while yeiv-o-yac stands for yev-jo-uac and corresponds to the 
Skt. ga-j-2 On yivupa see ‘Gk, Verb’ p. 112, Beermann ‘Stud.’ ix, 
44,—-yéwa ‘race’ with Aeol. gemination=(pro-)gente-s, cp. Goth. kunt 
(n.) Fick 1°. 558.— On the forms which mean ‘woman’ (i.e. ‘bearer’), 
see Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 129.—Boeot. Bavd, Baynxds (Ahr. ‘Acol.’ 172) for 
yFava with addition of the labial sound, which has also established 
itself in Gothic and Celtic; hence by abbreviation yuvj7. On the 
inflexion yvva-ix-ds with the accession of the suffix 4% cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 
216 and below p. 679. — On the Ir. ben (gen. mnd Z?. 241) Ebel 
‘Beitr.’ i. 160, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ v. 446. — On ndtdira see Classen ‘ zur 
Geschichte des Wortes Natur,’ Frankf. a. M. 1862. — The forms with 
pw like ydyo-s, yau8pd-s will be discussed below on p. 546. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 205 


129. yép-avo-s crane (both the bird and the machine), 
yepav-to-v, [epdv-eia. 
Lat. gr-di-s, gru-e-re. 
OHG. chr-an-uh, AS. cr-an. 
Lith. gér-vé, dim. ger-v-élé, ChSl. zer-avt crane, 176 
Lith. garny-s stork. 
Corn. garan crane. 


Pott 7 227, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 399, Forstem. ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 48, Fick 1°. 
565.—It is remarkable that in all languages the word serves to denote 
a machine as well. The root is according to Pictet i. 492 gar ‘to be 
old,’ ‘because cranes lived to be over fifty years old.’ The bird is 
mentioned T 3 for its cry, and it seems more simple to assign the 
word to the rt. gar ‘call’ No. 133.—Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ ii. 453.—Cp. 
OGall. tarvos trigaranus (of a bull with three birds on its back) 
‘Beitr.’ iii. 168. 

129b. yép-as honour, gift of honour, yepa-pd-s deserving 
honour, yepaipery honour. — Zd. gar (n.) honour, 
garanh (n.) reverence. 


Fick 1°. 566. — garanh is identical with yépas.—I formerly con- 
nected these words with Bapv-s from *garu-s (No. 638), as to which I 
am now as doubtful as I am about Fick’s derivation of the words from 
the rt. gar ‘call’ (No. 133). Still yadpo-s ‘proud’ (cp. No. 122) for 
gar-va-s (cp. vetpo-vy and nervu-s) may really be related to these words, 
as well as to the Skt. gar-vd-s ‘ pride,’ garva-rd-s ‘ proud.’ 


130. yép-wy (st. yepovT) old man, ypad-s old woman, 
ypav-Karo-s° dpvis tedpds Hesych., ynp-as old 
age, yepa-t0-s, ynpadéo-s old, ynpd-cKety to grow 
old. 

Skt. gar-an (st. garant) old man, gar-and-s totter- 
ing, old, gar-as, gar-a& old age. — Zd. zaur-va (for 
zar-va) old age. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 253, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 41.—The root is 
gar, Skt. gar-a-mi, intrans. ‘become infirm,’ trans, ‘to rub away,’ 
‘destroy.’ To this root belongs also gar-gdara-s ‘ decrepit,’ ‘ tattered,’ 
‘cracked,’ with which goes yep-yép-t-po-s ‘ falling’ (of over-ripe fruit). 
yepdv-dpu-o-v ‘old tree’ suggests the Skt. gara-nd-s (cp. garana-druma-s 
the name of a tree). Cp. odkos yépov x 184. Here we must add 
yepnvio-s the epithet of Nestor if we are to accept Duntzer’s view 
‘Ztschr.’ xii. 9 that it means nothing more or less than yépor. For 
yepatd-s we must assume a primitive form nearer to the Skt. gdras or 


206 BOOK II. 


gard. yhpas shares with the Skt. gardju-s the peculiar application to 
the cast-off skin of the serpent. From its;wrinkles no doubt the skim 
on milk is called ypats. ypai-s (in Homer also as a dissyllable yp7-v-s) 
has been thoroughly discussed by Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 375, and now 
also by Konr. Zacher De nominibus in aws (Halis 8. 1877) p. 65 ff. 
It is for yep-af-i-s, hence in Callim. (E. M.) ypad-i-s, the vowel- 
lengthening after the p as in rpf-o1-s by rapecixpas, Fe contracted to v 
like F-o to v in -va=-foo-1a. Also ypaia. In the P .W. the Skt. givri-s 
‘decrepit’ is derived by metathesis from a supposed form gar-vi-s, 
which would be identical with our form ypa-fi-s.— The Tpatkot too 
must belong here. — We see perhaps a trace of the physical primary 
meaning (cp. above p. 114) in ypata kapSoros (Hesych.), inasmuch as it 
is ‘a grinding machine,’ ‘a mortar:’ the Lat. gra-nu-m=OlIr. grdn 
(Z?. 228), Goth. katir-n, ChSl. zrv-no, and the Gk. yipi-s ‘fine meal’ 
(cp. Skt. gur=gar) has been long ago placed in this list, and to these 
words belongs ypi (ovdé ypt, Clemm ‘Stud.’ iii. 294). Otherwise 
Hehn? p. 493. 

177 131. Stem rev (for reuc) yed-w I give to taste, yev-o-var 

taste, yed-ci-s taste, yed-ua taste, food. 

Skt. gush (gushé) to relish, gush-ti-s favour, gratifi- 
cation, gosha-s contentment, satisfaction. 

Lat. dé-gu(s)-n-e-re (degustare Paul. Epit.), gus-tu-s, 
gus-t-are. 

Goth. kius-a doxipag@ | Eng. choose], kus-tu-s doxipy, 
kaus-jan yevecOat, ON. kost-r choice, condition, 
state. 

Oly. to-gu eligo (for *gusw), do-roi-gu elegit (for 
* do-ro-gegus-), tuicse electus (for * to-qus-te). 

Bopp‘ GL.’ Pott W. 11. 2, 376, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 399.— The somewhat 
surprising variety of meaning can be no obstacle to the comparison of 
the Gk. and Indian words, as we see the ideas ‘ choose,’ ‘ prove,’ and 
‘taste’ exchanged in the Teutonic languages. In Homer, too, the 
metaphorical use predominates: yeveo@ac dddndov. The physical 
meaning only occurs p 413 (I. Bekker ‘ Hom. Bl.’ ii. 4).— Fick 1°. 572 
adds the AS. cus ‘kiss,’ which he compares with gustu-lu-s ‘kiss’ 
(Appuleius). 

182. y7, ya-i-a land, earth, y’-a sown-field, yn-i-r7-s 
countryman, yeit-wyv neighbour, y7-ivo-s earthly, 
earthen. 

Skt. gdu-s (st. g@) earth (?). 

Bopp ‘Gl., Benf. ii, 144.—yi-a contracted possibly from yfa-a like 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 207 


yun from yFava (No. 128).—yq from yea. — yeir-ov (cp. ‘ E. M.’ p. 229, 
26) comes very near to ynirn-s, with attenuation of yi to « (cp. peod- 
yeta, Aecroupyds and Ayito-v); for the meaning cp. vicinus from vicus, 
popularis in the sense of ‘one’s countryman,’ tribulis, oixérns etc., in 
all of which cases the addition of ‘from the same’ is naturally made 
(Joh. Schmidt ‘ Vocal.’ i.91). oy is an individualizing suffix (‘ Ztschr.’ 
iv. 215).— The meaning ‘earth’ in the case of the Skt. word is, 
according to the P. W., a metaphorical one, derived from the usual 
meaning of the word, which is ‘cow’ (st. gav= of), the earth being 
regarded as ‘the milch-cow of the kings.’ It is for this reason that 


I have added the (?). — Perhaps the Gk. words belong to the rt. ya 
(yev No. 128). 


133. yjpu-s speech, ynpv-w speak, sound, [npudv. 

Skt. rt. gar (gr-ud-mi) extol, gir repute, speech, 
gir-& a speech. — Zd. gar sing, extol. 

Lat. garrio chatter, garrulu-s talkative. 

OHG. kirru creak, guiru gemo, garrio. 

Lith. gdrsa-s voice, garsv-s loud, gyr-d fame, ChSI. 
glas-% voice. 

Ol. gdir repute, forcon-gur praecipio (for *-garu), 
Jris-gair contradicit, frecre responsum (for frith- 
gare), to-gairm invocatio. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Benf. ii. 129, who hazards several bold speculations. 
Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 397 denies that the Skt. words have the meaning 
‘sound,’ and this makes their relationship doubtful. — Fick 1°. 564 
lays down the Skt. gar ‘make a noise,’ ‘call,’ as the root. — garrio 
like the Lith gars-as must be from a root with added s, and so for 
garsto (cp. yépavos No. 129).—It is probable though that we ought 
also to connect some words with J, e.g. gal-lu-s (cp. OHG. hano and 
Lat. can-o), ON. kalla Eng. call (Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 165); also the 
Ch&l. gla-gol-a-ti ‘ speak’ (Miklosich ‘ Radices’ s. v.). Cp. Pott ii”. 598, 
W. ii. 1, 228.—On I'npvav ‘Bellower’ see Pott ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 94, ix. 187. 

133 b. yAav-xé-s bright, glistening, yAave-@mi-s bright- 
eyed, yAadé owl, yAatoo-o shine, yAavod-v (Hes. 
Aapmpov).— Goth. glaggvu-s, AS. gledv splen- 
didus, sagax. 

Benf. i. 124, Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 15, Lottner x1. 197, Hugo 
Weber ‘Et. Unters.’ 91, Pott W.1.770.— With yravé ep. cca No. 111. 
— On the meaning of the Gk. words Schol. Apoll. Rhod. 1. 1280 éa- 


yAavooovow ayti tod porifovor 7 Svadaprovow, dOev kai 7 ’AOnva yavkamts, 


179 


208 BOOK II. 


Kal yAnvn 1) Képn Tov dpOadpod, mapa td yavocev, d €or Adumew. kal 
Evpuridns emt ris oednvns expnoaro ‘ yAaukamis te otpeperar phy. —yhavoow 
for yAavk-jo, so also yAavod-v for yAave-jo-v. L. Meyer accounts for 
the irregularity of the representation in the Teutonic words.—-yAj-vos 
‘something to look at,’ ‘trinket,’ and yAj-vn ‘pupil of the eye,’ must 
be from the rt. yad mentioned at No. 123. Cp. Brugman ‘Stud.’ iv. 
144, Bugge ‘ Stud.’ iv. 326. 


134. Root rAap yAdéd-@ hollow out, yAdéd-v a hollow, 
yrad-v-po-s hollow, smooth. — Lat. glaber (st. 
glab-ro) bald, smooth, Glabrio, glabresco, glabrare. 

Pott W. v. 317, Benf. i. 209, Fick i. 91.— yAad-o : scalp-o=ydv¢g-a : 
sculp-o. Cp. No. 138, 

134 b. Root rAug yAvd-w hollow out, engrave, yAvp-avo-s 
carving-tool, yAvm-Tn-s carver. — Lat. glib-o 
peel, glii-ma hull, pod. 

Pott W. v. 317. — Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 381 compares yAvd-o with 
the Lat. scwlp-o, in which case the ¢ would have arisen from 7, so also 
Leo Meyer ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ i. 41, Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 178. Fick i°. 574 on 
the same assumption adds the AS. cleéfan, OHG. chlioban ‘cleave’ 
(cp. the NHG. klauben ‘ cull’), while Walter compares glib-o with 
the Gk. xedvgn, xeAvdos ‘shell.’ 


135. Root ryw é-yvw-v, yl-yve-oK-w perceive, yv@-cl-s 
perception, yvé-y opinion, yvw-o-76-s, yyw-Td-s 
known, yvwp-i¢-@ make known. 

Skt. rt. gid (gand-mi) know, gid-na-m informa- 
tion, knowledge, gid-s, gid-ti-s acquaintance, 
relation (P. W. 111. 150). — Zd. zan recognize. 

Lat. gno-sc-0, n0-ti-o, n0-tu-s, gnd-ru-s, i-gndr-o, 
OLat. gnar-igare, narrare. 

OHG. knd-u cognosco, Goth. kann yryvdécKe, kunth-s 
yvwotos, kunthi yvaots. | 

ChSl. zgna-ti yryvdcKew, zna-men-ye onpetoy, Lith. 
Zin-atw I know, part. Zino-ma-s known. 

Olr. co asa-gnoither ut intellegatur (Z?. 743), ad- 
gén-sa perf. cognovi, gndth solitus, Cymr. gnawt 
habitus (Z?. 94). 

Bopp ‘ Comp. Gr.’ 1. 230, Pott W. i. 38, Benf. ii. 143, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 
110. Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 162. — Joh. Schmidt (cp. Fick 1°. 559) argues 
(‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 278) that we must start from the rt. gan and assign 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 209 


the metathesis to gnd& to the time after the languages had become 
separate. — yrackw xara "Hmewporas (‘ Et. Orionis’ p. 42, 17)=Lat. 
gnosco. — d-yvo-é-w a-yvo-1a suggest an adjective stem yvofo, while 
yropife points to an adj. similar to the Lat. gndru-s, to which per- 
haps vdpo* cvvinu, vdpew* (rev (Hesych. Lobeck ‘ Rhem.’ 132) belongs. 
Lat. norma, equivalent in meaning to yyopov, is explained by Benf., 
rightly, I think, as for gnorima, but it has the look of a borrowed word. 
If we want to connect vdo-s and vo¢e-w with the rt. yo it must be 
through the above-mentioned yvofo. This is at any rate made probable 
by the well attested Aecolic yroéo and the Attic dudi-yroe-w and also 
by the form ModvvdFas (gen. fem.) on an old Corcyraean inscription dis- 
cussed by Wachsmuth ‘ Rhein. Mus.’ xviii. 578. — There is an unmis- 
takeable relationship between this root and the rt. yer (No. 128). 
Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 184 considers the notion of ‘sprouting’ as a con- 
necting link between the notions of producing and perceiving, while 
C. Pauli ‘Ueber die deutschen verba praeterito-praesentia’ Stettin 
1863 p. 2 (similarly Classen ‘Natura’ p. 7) falls back on the notion 
of ‘coming’ that is contained in the rt. ga, gam. The latter explana- 
tion seems to me the most satisfactory. But in any case the distinction 
between the physical and the metaphysical meaning must be placed 
before the separation of the languages, since every language, though not 
with complete consistency, keeps the two phonetically distinct. This 
distinction has been most completely insured in the Graeco-Italian lan- 
guages, which make use of vowel variation for the purpose, the Greeks 
more thoroughly than the Romans (cp. yo-pifo and gnd-ru-s).— 
Corssen i?. 83 doubts whether the Lat. gnd-vu-s (with navdre) belongs 
here on account of the meaning. We could only trace the meaning 
‘active’ to the rt. gna by supposing that in Latin as in German kennen 
(to know) became kénnen (to be able) just as ‘knowledge is power’ 
(Whitney ‘Lect.’ 111). The assumption of Corssen (i*. 436) that gnd- 
vu-s is—in the sense of yevvaios!—connected with the rt. gen presents 
still greater difficulty to my mind. — Fick 1°. 561 connects the ON. 
knér ‘ able,’ ‘ brave’ (from *knd-va-s) directly with gnd-vu-s. 


186. yoy-yi¢-o (for yoy-yvy-j-@) murmur, yoyve-y-pL6-s 


murmuring. 
~ ~ ZL bd ~ e 
Skt. rt. guig, guig-a-mi murmur, guigita-m hum- 
ming. 


ChSl. gag-na-niyye yoyyvopés, gag-nivit yoyyu¢ov. 
Benf. ii. 62, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 103. — The Gk. form is reduplicated. 
The y changed before 7 into 5, hence yoy-yi¢-o and consequently yoy- 
yvo-pd-s. Cp. Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii. 211, Fritzsche vi. 335, otherwise 
Fick 1°. 558. 
1 


210 BOOK II. 


187. yévu knee, youvd-o-wat, youvd-¢-opat kneel, yvi-§, 
mpo-xvu with the knees bent, (-yv’-a hollow of 
the knee. 

Skt. gdnu knee, abhi-giv as far as the knee. — Zd. 
zhnu plur. zanva. 3 
Lat. genu, dim. geni-culu-m, geniculatu-s knotty, con- 
genu-cl-a-t Non. p. 89, Genucius. | 
180 Goth. kniu. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott ii*.59, Benf. ii. 119, Fick i?. 566. — Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 
i. 129, ‘ Beitr.’ iii. 465, where the relationship of the three primitive 
forms ganu, ganu, and gnu is discussed. yovv-ar for yorv-ar with a 
freshly added suffix, cp. éveip-ara with dvepo-s. — To yu belong yvv-meror, 
yvureretv Hes.—In mpd-yvu (cp. Skt. pra-gnu-s ‘bow-legged,’ Zd. 
fra-shnu=mpé6-xvv) aspiration is unmistakeable before the », cp. Avxve-s 
No. 88. i-yvv-a must be for éy-yvi-a, cp. Hesych. ty-xpo-s" éy-Kepado-s.— 
Fick (‘ Bezz. Beitr.’ i. 59) quotes a remarkable gloss yetvev" yovdrov 
(cod. yevyav), which points to a dialectic *yeru= Lat. genu. — May not 
yovia ‘corner’ be a simple derivative from yévv? Déoderlein ‘ Hom. 
Gloss.’ 1011 compares youvd-s ‘hill,’ and Tévva, Tovvotcoa= Genua. 

138. Root rpap ypéd-m scratch, write, ypag-7 writing, 
ypag-i-s graver, style, ypay-u7 line, ypdép-pa 
letter. 

Goth. grab-a oxdrre, gréba pit. (Germ. Grube.) 

ChSl. po-greb-a@ sepelio, grob-% grave, Lith. grabé 
ditch. 

Pott W. v. 309, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 408, Benf. i. 118, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 
102.— The difference of the meanings, which surprises us at first sight, 
(cp. note to No. 329) is analogous to that in the case of yAddo, yAvho 
(No. 134): they are reconciled with one another by ypopdds ts madara 
Hesych., seeing the sow clearly gets the name from digging and 
wallowing (cp. scrofa and scrobis). ypépw for ypapea ‘C. I’ No. 1126, 
8 Keil ‘ Philol. Suppltb.’ ii. 565.— On its original initial letter and re- 
lation to seribo see p. 703. According to Fick i*. 574 the OHG. kerb- 
an, which shows the regular representative of the g, belongs here. 

189. Stem erep éyp-jyop-a am awake, €-yp-e-ro he 
awoke, €-ye/p-w@ waken, éyep-ri actively, wake- 
fully. 

Skt. rt. gar (gd-gdr-mi) am awake, Ao. d-gi-gar I 
woke (trans.), gdgar-ti (f.) wakefulness, being 
awake, gdagr-vi-s awake. — Zd. rt. gar to be 
awake, | 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 211 


Bopp ‘GIl.,’ whose comparison of vigil and the OHG. wachan seems 
to me, as to Pott W. ii. 1, 240, to be doubtful, because in both words 
the root that is at the bottom of vigere, vegetus may well be present. — 
Benf. ii. 128. — The ¢ must be a compensation for the reduplication syl- 
lable ga Skt. g@, so that gar is the simple root. The answer to Fritzsche’s 
objections to this view (‘ Stud.’ vi. 321. f.) is that the initial consonant 
was first sacrificed in forms like é-yp-e-ro (cp. é-ypappévos ‘Gk. Verb’ 
pp. 358 and 368). It is against connexion with No. 133 that the 
intransitive meaning is plainly the older and prominent one in this 
stem. On Pott’s view, that the é¢ here arose from ék, like d in dyeipo 
from sa ‘with,’ cp. above p. 33. 


140. é-e/y-w press, drive, aiy-i-s storm-wind, xar-avyi¢-w 
storm down, aiy-es waves, alyi-ad6-s shore, aiy- 
e.po-s poplar (2). 
Skt. ing (trg-G-mi) rouse myself, znga-s moveable, 
ég-d-mi tremble. 

- Bopp ‘GI.’ s. v. tiga, Benf. i. 343. Pott W. iii. 429. — alyes kipara 
Awpreis Hesych. (cp. Schmidt’s note). On the common occurrence of 
the stem aiy in names of places cp. E. Curtius ‘Ionier’ p. 18, 50, émetyw 181 
like the Skt. égdmi is used of wind and waves, the latter also of an 
earthquake. atye:po-s perhaps for aiyepjo-s ‘trembling poplar,’ cp. pé- 
pul-u-s and mddho (1). — May not the Lat. aeg-er belong here and be 
connected with the Skt. ég-d-mi, ég-d-thu-s ‘a shaking,’ é@dat-hd-s 
‘trembling?’ Trembling is certainly one of the commonest symptoms 
of illness. Cp. note to No. 409.— Otherwise Fick i*. 507, 661, Brug- 
man ‘Stud.’ vil. 323. 


141. Root Fepr €-opy-a, épd-w, pé¢-w do, épyo-y work, 
épya¢-opar work, ’Apyadeis, épyavo-y instrument, 
dpyto-y sacred act. 

Skt. vrdg-d-mi go, get into (a state) (?).— Zd. varez 
effect, do, vareza (masc.) operation, verez (fem.) 
work. 

Goth. vatirk-jan épyaégecOar, OHG. wérah, wérk. 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 296, Benf. ‘ Gott. Anz.’ 1852 p. 1970, where the 
attempt is made to connect this root with No.142, Pott W. ii. 1043.— 
On the F see Hoffmann ‘ Quaestt. Hom.’ ii. 23 sq., Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 
32, 226, ‘Dor.’ 46 (Fépyov, Elic fFdpyov, Lacon, yaBepyds); it has 
left traces in é-opy-a, eipyagéuny (‘Gk. Verb’ pp. 83, 363), depyds, dSnpto- 
epyés. — pd arose from Fepy-jo, pé(o from Fpey-jo, Both correspond 
exactly to the Zend verez-yd-mi. Cp. No. 573, 

ri% 


182 


PA BOOK II. 


142. Root Fepr etpy-vupu, eZpy-w shut in, keep off, eipy- 

po-s a shutting up, efpx-74 prison, AvKo-opyo-s. 

Skt. varg (vdrg-a-mi, vr-n-d-g-mi) turn away, vraga-s 
pen, hurdle, hedge, vrg-dna-m inclosure, farm, 
urg-ind-s crooked, false. 

Lat. urg-e-0, ex-urg-e-o. 

Goth. vrik-a diékw, OHG. reccheo a persecuted man, 
Goth. vruggé snare, AS. vring-an stringere. 

Lith. verz-iu% to tie tight, press, ChSl. vrtz-q ligo, 
vrag-% inimicus. 

Pott W. ili. 652, Benf. ‘Gott. Anz.’ 1852 p. 1970, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ii, 133, Diefenbach ‘ Vgl. Worterb.’i. 236 Fick i°. 773.—Traces of 
the F in the Homeric eépyw etc. The distinction made in Attic be- 
tween eipy-o ‘shut in,’ and eipy-o ‘shut out’ (cp. Kriiger on Thue. 
i. 34, Lobeck ‘ad Ajac.’ v. 753) must be set down as of comparatively 
late origin. From the primitive meaning of ‘ press’ we arrive at the 
double meaning ‘ press 77,’ ‘shut in,’ and ‘ press owt,’ ‘ shut out;’ under 
the head of the latter branch comes the ethical force in Skt., Goth., 
and ChSl. Zimmer (‘ Nominal-suffix a’ 149) points out that the Teu- 
tonic words belonging to the Goth. ga-lukan ‘shut’ have the same 
twofold application. — Cp. No. 152.— There is a contrast of long 
standing between this root and No. 153, which survives in the 
English right and wrong. 


143, Stem épur 7pvy-o-v I bellowed, épvy-pndo-s bellow- 
ing, épvy-ydv-@, épevy-w spit out, belch, épuvy-7 
vomiting. 

Lat. ruc-t-a-re belch, ruc-tu-s a belching, é-rig-e-re 
spit out, rumin-are to chew over again. 

OHG. it-ruch-an to ruminate, AS. roccettan eructare. 

ChSl. ryg-a-tt epedyeoOai, Lith. ridug-mi belch. 


Pott W. iii. 602, Benf. ii. 15, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 130, Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ 
v. 350.—éragere Enn. ‘Ann.’ 546 Vahl. ‘contempsit fontes quibu’ sese 
érigit aquae vis’ Paul. ‘Epit.’ 83; @-rdég-2¢ with @ as lengthening of 
the present-stem=Gk. ev, cp. diico, dico, Bopp ‘Comp. Gr.’ i. 206. — 
The e in the Gk. words is prothetic, cp. No. 306 and p. 724. 


144, Root aur €-dy-nv ¢evy-vu-p. yoke, bind together, 
(edy-pa, fedy-os team, opud-(vgé, av-~v€é yoked to- 
gether, (vy-d-s, (vy-d-v yoke. 

Skt. gug (ju-nd-g-mi) harness, bind together, jug 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 213 


joined, companion, jug-d-m yoke, team, jvig-ja-m 
waggon, draught-animal. — Zd. yw) connect, yoke. 
Lat. ju-n-go,ju-men-tu-m, con-Jux, jug-u-m, jUug-eru-mM, 
juxta. 
Goth. juk, ga-juk-6 ¢edyos, jukuzt ¢vyds, ga-juko 
av¢vyoes, OHG. joh, joch, yoke. 
ChSl. ig-o jugum, Lith. yunga-s yoke, gung-tw (1) 
yoke. 
Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W.i. 1245, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 408. — On the super- 
lative form juxta see Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 285, 117, 549. — Pictet ii. 95. 
, —Corssen 1”. 639.— Fick i°. 734 adds the Lat. yug-ulu-m ‘ collar-bone,’ 
and the Goth. jiuka ‘strife,’ jiukan ‘strive,’ ‘conquer,’ appealing to 
the Skt. abhi-jug ‘attack. —The Cymr. tow jugum is regarded by Z?. 
136 as an imported word. 


145. Root oir €-Ory-o0-v, Otyydv-w touch, 6/y-pa touch. 
Skt. dih (déh-mi) besmear, déh-t mound, rampart.— 
Zd. diz throw up, heap up. 
Lat. fi-n-g-o, fig-ulu-s, fig-ura, fic-tor, opus fic-tile. 
Goth. deig-a mAdoow, dig-an-s écTpakivos, daig-s 
pvpapa (OHG. teig), ga-dig-is mAdopa. 

‘Ztschr.’ i. 398.—Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 124.—The primitive 
form seems to be dhigh, the second aspirate is represented in Gk. by 
the medial. The primitive meaning is ‘touch,’ ‘feel,’ ‘knead,’ hence 
with the gen. @yeiv tivos, ‘feel anything,’ ‘touch it,’ with the acc. 
Jingere aliquid in feeling it to shape it, used alike in the Skt., Lat. 
and Teutonic languages of soft substances. Hence fictores Varro ‘ L. L.’ 
vil. 44 ‘a fingendis libis’ (Enn. ‘ Annal.’ 124), and again according 
to Isidore ‘fictor qui capillos mulierum linit et pertractat et ungit 
et nitidat,’ most often of the potter’s work. The connexion of y- 
yavo and fingo, which Corssen formerly denied and now (i”. 150) 
allows, is explained by xpaivw in its relation to xpd, xpavo, xpas, 
xpato. That fingere by no means signifies ‘to make fast,’ but denotes 
a grazing, touching action is proved to demonstration by Sophus 
Bugge ‘Tidskr. f. Philol.’ 1866 p. 26, on jfimgere manus, fingere 
humum, and effingere spongtis sanguinem (Cic. ‘pro Sest.’ 35), 1. e. 
‘wipe off and out.’ It is worth remarking that @yydvw is post- 
Homeric.— Perhaps Grassmann is right in deriving rety-os ‘rampart,’ 
‘wall,’ and roixo-s with the aspirate in the second place instead of 
the first, and also (‘Ztschr.’ xix. 309) the Osc. fethiiss acc. pl. from 183 
the rt. dhigh; both the meaning and the sounds fit in here very well. 
Otherwise Biicheler ‘Commentat. in honorem Mommseni’ p, 235. In 


214. BOOK II. 


that case rotyo-s would be completely equivalent to the Germ. Deich 
(dike), which according to Grimm’s ‘ Wtb. has preserved its Low- 
German initial letter. On the meanings cp. Heinr. Schmidt ‘Sy- 
nonymik’ i, 226 ff.— No connexion can possibly be admitted with 
pingo (No. 101) and figo (No. 157).— Fick’s connexion of the Skt. 
dagh ‘ reach as far as’ (i°. 637) I cannot accept. 


146. Root Aur Aay-apo-s slack, thin, \¢y-vo-s luxurious, 
Aayvevo. 
Skt. lafig-& scortum (2). 
Lat. langu-e-o, langu-i-du-s, langu-or, laxu-s, laxa-re, 
lac-tes the small intestine, entrails. 


Pott W. iii. 629. — day-dv-es ‘the loins’ may also be put here,— 
compared by Fick i®. 24 with the Skt. algd-s ‘groin,’ ‘loins’ (P.W. 
vol. v. Nachtr.),—perhaps also Aaye-s ‘ hare,’ connected by Grassmann 
xii. 92 and others with the Skt. laigh ‘salire;’ we might perhaps 
be right in joining Ayy-«, which finds no equivalent in any other lan- 
guage, cp. Hesych. Aaydooa adeiva, \ayyever pevyet. Otherwise Bugge 
‘Stud.’ iy. 334, Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 412 f. — Frohde ‘ Bezzenb. 
Beitr.’ iii. 16 well compares with Aayapd-s and langueo the ON. slak-r, 
Eng. slack, OHG. slach ‘loose.’ As the same scholar agrees with me 
in referring A7yo to the same root, he finds in this way an excellent 
explanation of the double A in a\Ankro-s, peraddnfarrs and other Homeric 
forms compared by Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 412. —In all this he 
agrees with Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 320. 


147. Aavyd¢o, Aoyyd¢w linger. — Lat. longu-s, longi-tudo, 
longinquu-s. — Goth. lagg-s long, lagg-et length. 


Hesych. explains Aayydfw by oxvéo, and according to Pollux ix. 136 
Aoyya¢ew occurred in this meaning in Aeschylus (fr. 107 Nauck). Since 
according to Bekk. ‘ Anecd.’ 106 Aayydfec means also évdi8wor, connexion 
with No. 146 is probable. We get from this, it is true, only the 
notion of extension in time, which according to Diefenb. ii. 121 ex- 
clusively belongs to the Goth. lagg-s. Still I with Corgsen ‘ Beitr,’ 
148 prefer this comparison to that often suggested with dodixés (No, 
167) as the two words seem inseparable phonetically, whereas to 
connect dodryés with longus we should have to do violence to Gk. laws 
of sound. 


148. Root Aur Avy-pd-s, Aevy-adéo-s mournful, horrible, 
Aovyo-s ruin, Aoly-Lo-s ruinous (?). 
Skt. rug (rug-a-mi) vomit, cause pains, rug, rug-d 
illness, ¢éka-rug-na-s broken by pain. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 7 215 


Lat. lig-e-o, lig-u-bri-s, luc-tu-s. 
Lith. /%-t¢ break (intrans.). 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Benf. ii. 16, Pott W.i.1289. The latter is most likely 
right in regarding rug as a lengthening of ru, like jug from ju, and 
this helps us to see the relationship of several words of kindred 
meaning—e. g. Skt. dup, Lat. rup, Gk. Aum (No. 341), — The notion 
of bodily and mental suffering appears also in the Lithuanian use of 
the word (Nesselmann ‘ Worterb.’ p. 376f.). The diphthong 1 in Aovyds 
is hard to explain. 

149, Stem Aur Avy-o-s vimen, Avyd-w, Avyi¢@ bend, knot, 
Avylopo-s a turning, bending. — Lat. lig-are, lic- © 
tor. — Lith. lug-na-s flexible (Nesselm.). | 

Pott W. iii. 261, who compares also among other words luawu-s ‘dis- 
location,’ Juc-ta ‘intertwining of the arms in wrestling,’ for which the 184 
Gk. words too are used. Cp. élictart. But duwus can hardly be 
separated from Aogds and the words assembled with it under No. 540. 
On lictor see Corssen 1*. 493. — Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 3 makes other 
combinations. — Fick connects this root with No. 148. 

150. Root wedAr auéAy-m milk, &yer£i-s milking, apod- 
yev-s milk-pail, dwoAyaio-s to be milked. 

Skt. marg (marg-mi, marg-d-mi) rub away, wipe 
away, strip off. — Zd. marez wipe. 

Lat. mulg-e-o, mulc-tu-s, mulc-tra, mulc-tru-m. 

OHG. milch-u, ON. mylk-ja. 

ChSl. mltéiz-a mulgeo, Lith. melz-u stroke, milk. 

OlIr. melg, mlicht milk, later blicht, bligim I milk, 
blegon a milking. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 563, Benf. i. 484, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 110. — 
Pictet ii. 27 points out the remarkable fact that this root is found in 
the sense of milking only among the European peoples. It is identical 
in origin with No. 151. The words for milk, among which only the 
German words certainly belong here, have been noticed under No. 
123.— The hopeless vuxrds duody, on which see below pp. 533 and 568, 
has certainly nothing to do with auéAyo. — The Olt. perf. do ommalgg 

mulxi’ (‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 211) presents difficulties in the initial om-. 


151. Root vepr dpépy-@ pluck off, duopyd-s squeezing out, 
dpopyn dregs, oudpy-vu-ui wipe away, dpfopy-pa 
spot. 

Skt. marg (No. 150). 
Lat. merg-ae, merg-e(t)s. 


216 BOOK II. 


mergae ‘furculae quibus acervi frugum fiunt’ Paul. ‘ Epit. 124 
closely connected with merge(t)-s ‘ sheaf.’ Cp. also duopy-ya* cvAXeyya, 
dprupa Hesych., and dyopy-is ‘ flax,’ dudpywo-s ‘of fine linen, and the 
name of the island ’Ayopyés distinguished for its linen. The Lat. 
amurca=dpdpyn is a borrowed word (Corssen ii?. 162).—Cp. No. 150. 
The preservation of the root with r by the side of the one with 7 with 
a different meaning is peculiar to the Graeco-Italians. Fick however 
(i3. 730) ingeniously connects also marg-o (st. margen) ‘border, 
properly ‘ tract,’ ‘strip,’ with the Goth. marka ‘border.’ - 

151b. véx-rap drink of the gods, in Alkman their food, 

VEKTAp-lo-S, voy-ado-y dainty, vweyadevely, voya- 
Aigecy eat dainties. — Norwegian snaka crave 
dainties, Dan. snage. 

Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 337, Fick ‘ Beitr.’ i. 62.—vayadov : véxrap : : KAaY : 
k\erto. The suffix rap ag in ikrap, and no doubt equivalent to rpo. 

152. é6py7 impulse, passion, dpyd-w swell, be puffed up, 
dpya-(d)-s meadow, park. 

Skt. arg, urga, Grgas fulness of power, sap, energy, 
urgaja-mi nourish, strengthen, urg-ita-s strong, 
urgas-vant swelling. 

Olr. ferg, ferc ira, OCymr. guerg efficax (Z?. 61). 

185 P.W. under wg.— We must consider the root-form to be varg, 
whence we can also get to virg-a and virg-o(n), grown girls being 
called dpyddes from their full shape. So Corssen ii%. 521. Cp. No. 
142.— The meaning ‘anger’ for copy is its latest. — Other related 
words from Keltic are Oly. foirggae ‘sea’ (in Ptol. Ovepytovios dkeavds 
Z’?. 10, 61), further OGall. vergo-bretus (Caes. ‘B. G.’ i. 16) ‘ cuius 
iudicium efficax est,’ cp. Z?. 857, Gliick ‘ Kelt. Namen’ p. 151. 

158. dpéy-@, dpéy-vu-y stretch out, dpry-vd-o-par stretch 
myself, extend, reach, dpey-pa, dpeéi-s a stretch- 
ing, opyuid, dpeyuia fathom. 

Skt. ar-g (drg-d-mi) attain to, r-i-g-é stretch myself, 
rg-rv-s straight, right, righteous, 7g-ra-s guide. 
— Zd. erezu straight, right, true, (as subst.) finger. 

Lat. reg-o, @-rig-0, por-rig-0, rog-us, rec-tu-s, rex. 

Goth. rak-ja (uf-rak-ja stretch out), rath-t-s (adv.) 
right, straight. 

Olr. rigim stretch out, é-rigim, girgim surgo (é= Lat. 
é-), éirge resurrectio; ré (gen. rég) rex, rége im- 
perium. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 217 


Bopp ‘GI.,’ Benf. i. 65, P.W., Pott W. iii. 424.—The Skt. argana-m 
‘acquiring,’ ‘ collecting,’ agrees remarkably well with the Goth. rik-a 
awpevo, which has been likewise compared, and which seems to go with 
rogu-s ‘fagot-heap. Walter (‘Quaest. etymol.’ Freienwalde 1864 
p- 4) is for completely separating from épéyo these words, with which 
goes the Sicilian-Greek foyd-s ‘corn-store’ (‘C. I’ 5574, 102), to- 
gether with the Skt. drg-d-mi, giving ‘collect’ as their fundamental 
notion. But a single glance at the meaning given in the P.W. for 
Grg-d-mi and r-fi-gé, and especially for their compounds, shows at once 
that they are not to be separated. The first verb is related to the 
second exactly as the Germ. erlangen (attain) is to langen (reach). 
But I agree with the view expressed by him in ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 420 that 
rég-to as ‘direction,’ ‘tract,’ belongs here. The primary meaning has 
preserved still greater vitality in the expression e regione ‘ over 
against’ (cp. the Germ. 7m Bereich ‘within the reach of’). But 
dpeypa which W. connects has not this meaning.—It is true that rex 
suggests the Skt. ragan, Goth. reik-s ‘king,’ but this is hardly enough 
to make us separate it from reg-ere and put it down to the rt. rag 
‘shine’ (No. 121) by which the Skt. word used to be explained. The Skt. 
i-rag-jd-ti ‘he arranges,’ ‘ guides,’ ‘ rules,’ distinguished by a prothetic 
2, is completely equivalent in meaning to regere. rak-sh too, ‘ watch,’ 
‘deliver,’ is from the same root. It has been clearly established by the 
P.W., and Grassmann’s ‘Wtb.’ under rag, that this root, with its 
vowel long as in the other case, meant ‘rule,’ ‘govern,’ ‘ guide.’ The 
meaning ‘shine’ either was a derived one, or belongs, as Grass- 
mann holds, to a separate root which has become identical with this 
one. Cp. Corssen 1%. 451. But ‘Pnyidaos serves the less to attest a 
Gk. st. pny ‘ruler,’ inasmuch as this proper name (which occurs first in 
Suidas) admits of other etymologies—e. g. from ‘Pyyov (cp. "Acwmd- 
aos). — There is also the Olr. ess-eirge ‘resurrectio’ Z*. 870. 


154. Root per pé¢-w dye, pay-ev-s, pny-ev-s dyer, péy-os, 
péy-pa Bappa. 
Skt. ratg (rdg-a-mi,rdg-ja-m?) colour oneself, redden, 186 
raga-ja-mi dye, redden, rak-ta-s dyed, red, rdga-s 
colour, ruddiness, rég-aka-s washer. 


Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. ui. 582. — pet is exactly equivalent to the Skt. 
rdg-ja-mi, 1.e. rag-ja-mi. On the Gk. words cp. ‘E. M.’ p. 703, 28 
(ed. Gaisford); besides fayevs there occur feyets and pyyets. Since 
pyyea ovyaddevra are ‘ brilliant carpets,’ pjy-os must certainly be put 
here and not with pdkos ‘rag,’ as Doderlein ‘Gloss.’ 1053 assumes, 


and Lobeck ‘ Rhemat.’ 79, who identifies our words with pé{ew facere, 


218 BOOK II. 


mentioning inficere. But a comparison of languages demonstrates the 
difference of the roots sey and Fpey, Fepy (No. 141), to which view, as M. 
Schmidt ad Hesych. s.v. xpvcopayés xpucoBadpés remarks, this compound 
with a single p adds fresh weight. Moreover fé{ never occurs in the 
sense of ‘ work at.’— Bopp is wrong in bringing épy7 to this root ; its 
meaning marks it as distinct (No. 152).— No, 121 is related. 
155. Root cter oréy-w cover, oréy-n, Téyn, oTéy-0s, Téy-0S 
roof, orey-avo-s covered, orey-vd-s thick. 
Skt. sthag (sthdg-d-mi) cover, hide, sthag-ana-m 
covering. 
Lat. teg-o, tec-tu-m, teg-i-men, teg-ula, tug-urtu-m. 
ON. thak roof |thatch, Germ. Dach], OHG. dek-ju I 
cover. 
Lith. stég-iu I cover, stéga-s roof. 
Oly. teg, tech domus, cunutgim (for con-ud-tegim) 
aedifico, tuigim I cover, tuige stramen, im-thuge 
clothing (Z?. 876); OCymr. bou-tig stabulum (Z?. 
888), to covering, roof. 

Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott W. iii. 448, Benf. i. 641, who compares Teyea as well, 
Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 322, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 165, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 994.—On 
the initial see Lob. ‘ Elem.’ 1.130. We can see with peculiar clear- 
ness in the case of this root the loss of the initial s. It is still pre- 
served in the Lat. stega ‘covering’ with the later by-form 2-stega 
(Corssen i. 453).— On the ch of the Iv. tech cp. Z?. 63; to the Cymr. 
to belong the old glosses com-toow ‘stemicamina,’ hanter-toetic ‘ semi- 
gilatis’ (-celatis 1), Z?. 902. It is the European root for the house- 
roof, and is but little used in Skt. 

156. chdpayo-s noise, spapayé-w make a noise, hiss. 
Skt. sphiirg (sphurg-d-mi) rumble, thunder, sphir- 
gajat (partic.) crackling, rustling, vi-sphtirg snort, 
hum. 
Lith. sprag-% crackle. 

Pott W. ii. 1, 428, Benf. i. 587, — Pott’s comparison of the AS. 
sprécan, OHG. sprehhan is adopted and worked out by Leo Meyer 
‘ Ztschr,’ vi. 151. — The relation of the Gk. word to ao¢dpayos ‘ wind- 
pipe,’ and ddpvyé ‘ gullet,’ ‘ wind-pipe’ (No. 408 b) presents a difficulty. 
Fick in ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ 11. 63 establishes the comparison of ddpuvyé 
‘wind-pipe, with the Lat. fri-men (for *frug-men) ‘oesophagus,’ 
‘larynx,’ and the ON. bark-t ‘throat,’ ‘wind-pipe. The subst. 
oddpayos occurs as such only in the Grammarians, but it is to 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 219 


be seen in another form in compounds like Bapu-ogdpayo-s ‘deep 
thundering,’ ¢p.-cgdpayo-s epithet of Poseidon and Zeus. — Cp. Lobeck 
‘ Proleg.’ 303. 

157. The comparison of odiyyw and figo which formerly found a 187 
place here, I now relinquish, in consideration of Fick’s objections to 
it in ‘ Ztschy.’ xxii. 103. 


158. Rt. tr vy-pd-s moist, liquid, dypo-rn-s moistness, 
vyp-aive wet. 
Skt. wksh-d-mi sprinkle, besprinkle, uksh-dn bull. 
Lat. iv-co, Gv-or, im-or, Gmecto. 
Goth. awhs-a, OHG. ohso ox. 
Cymr. ych bos (pl. ychen), Corn. ohan boves (Z?. 293). 


Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Benf. i. 438, 11. 357, Ebel ‘ Beitr. *ii. 176. — I regard the 
Skt. wksh as a secondary form for the primary wg. wv-e-o is from 
ugv-e-o like fru-o-r from frugv-o-r with added v. wtmor, uimidus, 
amecto point to a lost adjective-stem w%-mo nom, *dimu-s, whence umor 
like albor from albus, Gmidu-s like vividus from vivu-s. The h is here 
in all cases a late intrusion. — The ON. vék-r ‘moist’ belongs to a rt. 
vag of similar meaning, from which wg must have come (Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xx. 167).— The Ir. ess (ox), Corm. s. v. essem, can hardly come from 
*vexan (Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 323), and must be kept apart from the 
Cymr. ych. 

159. byi-7s (st. byves), Vyin-pd-s healthy, bye-ra health, 
ty.aiv-w am healthy, ty:é¢-@ make healthy. 

Skt. ug-rd-s strong, powerful, 0j-as strength, vitality, 
dg-asvant strong, dgyas stronger. — Zd. aojanh 
strength. . 

Lat. veg-e-o excite, vig-e-0, veg-e-tu-s, vig-or, vig-il — 
aug-e-0, aug-men-tu-m, augus-tu-s. 

Goth. auk-a (I) increase (trans.). 

Lith wig-i-s, tig-i-s, growth, sucker, dug-u (I) grow, 
aug-mit (st. aug-men) shoot, growth. 

Olr. dg integer, dge integritas, virginitas. 

Bopp ‘Gl. s.v. dgas, details discussed by Pott i. 205, Kuhn 
‘Ztschr.’ iii. 336.—The above words are to be referred to three 
primary forms: (1) vag, retained in the Skt. vag, whence vag-a-s 
‘strength’ (‘strengthening) food,’ ‘race, vagin ‘quick,’ ‘lively,’ 
vag-d-ja-mi ‘run a race,’ ‘hurry,’ ‘incite. Also the Lat. veg-eo 
(Enn. ‘Ann.’ 477, ‘ Com.’ 2), veg-e-tu-s, vig-e-0, vig-or, vig-tl along with 
the OHG. wach-ar ‘alacer,’ and—from the notion of growing—AS. 


220 BOOK II. 


vocor ‘proles,’ ‘fenus’ (cp. rékos, fenus). (2) ug, related to vag as the 
Skt. sup (Gk. ir) to svap (No. 391). This the shortest form is the 
base of the Gk. words, though there is an « added which I do not 
understand (éyeta late, Lob. ‘El.’ i. 279). — Moller ‘Ztschr.’ xxiv. 513 
believes the « of ty-t-ns to be due to a y ‘mouilli.” Another way 
of explaining it is by supposing a suffixed --es. Apparently Fick 
(‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ ii. 63) is compelled to a like supposition in order to 
get mul-ier from the rt. mud (pi¢ew) ‘suck’ (here ‘ suckle’).— From ug 
moreover we get the Skt. wg-rd-s, and the Lithuanian vg-i-s. (3) An 
increase of sound raises ug to aug, 1. e. Skt. *dg, 6g (Ir. 6g) ; this form 
is preserved pure in the Lat. awg-eo, augus-tu-s (cp. Skt. ogas-vant), 
in the Goth. auk-a, and the Lith. gdug-u. This stem with added s is 
treated separately at No. 583.— The meanings develope themselves 
easily in all cases from the primary meaning ‘to be active.’ Fick 
‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 167 connects this root with No. 158 under the general 
notion of ‘to be fresh,’ ‘juicy.’ 


188 160. dnyd-s oak, dny-dév oak-grove, dny-.véo-s, Pyy-Lvo0-s 
oaken, dyyera. 
Lat. fagu-s beech, fag-ineu-s, fag-inu-s, fagutali-s. 
OHG. buohha, AS. béce, MHG. buochin made of beech- 
wood. 


Pott W. iii. 504, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 398, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 84. —The 
Bohemian buk ‘red-beech,’ and the ChSl. buk-y ‘fagus,’ ‘ littera,’ 
‘liber ’ (Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 48) are proved by their & to be borrowed from 
the German.— The tree is not the same in the three families of speech; 
Kuhn conjectures the word to have been originally the name of a tree 
with edible fruit, and accepts the old etymology from ¢ayeiv (No. 408). 
—So too Pictet i. 213, who reminds us of aes-culu-s, but the connexion 
of this word with the rt. ed ‘eat’ (No. 279) cannot be allowed to be 
established on account of the diphthong. But dk-vdo-s ‘acorn’ suggests 
the Skt. ag ‘eat.’ The Skt. bhag means ‘distribute,’ so that here we 
get the primary meaning. (Cp. above p. 114.) 


161. Root darcy Préy-a, frey-é-8-@ burn, shine, drAéy-pa, 
drey-povy inflammation, gAcy-vpd-s burning, 
prog (st. Prov) flame. 

Skt. bhrag (bhrag-é) glow, gleam, bhrag (f.), bhdrg-as 
brightness. 

Lat. fulg-e-o, fulg-ur, ful-men, ful-vu-s, flag-ra-re, 
flam-ma, fld-men priest, Ose. itivet flagitt (Jovi 
fulguratori). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 221 


Goth. batrh-t-s 8nros, at-batrht-ja éemipaive, OHG. 
blichu splendeo. 

Lith. blizg-% glimmer, shine, ChSl. brézg-% dilu- 
culum. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. ii. 544, Benf. 1. 106, 11. 340, Corssen ‘ Ephem. 
Epigraph.’ uu. 162.— The ideas ‘shine’ and ‘burn’ run into one 
another as they do in many other instances, so that Fick i, 153 
derives ¢pvyw (No. 162) from the same primary form bharg. The g is 
in several instances driven out in Latin. jfld-men is by Varro ‘L. L.’ v. 
84 Miill. derived from filum ‘quo caput cinctum habebant.’? Mommsen 
‘Hist. of Rome’ i. p. 175 regards the word, as we do, as meaning 
‘the kindler.’ ful-vu-s seems to me to belong here on account of the 
similarity of its use with that of at@wv, aidoyy, both being epithets of lions 
and eagles, but not flavu-s, which denotes a lighter colour and belongs 
to No. 197. Otherwise Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 353, Corssen ‘ Ital. 
Sprachkunde’ 200.— The connexion of fulvu-s and fldvu-s has been 
again argued at length and supported by a store of quotations by 
O. Weise in his very interesting Essay ‘Die Farbenbezeichnung der 
Indogermanen’ in ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ ii. 281. — In the Lith, blizg-a the 
z, according to Schleicher ‘Lit. Gr.’ 72, is added. Some of the words 
here given are derived by Fick 1°. 697 from a synonymous rt. bhark, 
but this root finds but slender support in the ill-authenticated Skt. 
bhrag (P.W.) and in the gloss @opxdv" Aevdy, wodudv, purdv Hesych. 


162. Root opur gppvy-o parch, ppvy-avo-v dry wood, 
dppvy-e-Tpo-y roaster, dpux-ro-s roasted, a fire 
signal. 

Skt. bharg, bhragg (bhrg-a-mi) parch, roast. 
Lat. frigo roast, bake. 
Olr. bairgen panis. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Pott W. iii. 543, Benf. ii. 13. — There is probably some 
connexion with No. 161, but the words separated when the Greeks 
and Italians were still one nation.— On the v of dpiyo and the 7 of 
frig-ere see Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 338. 


163. Root gur evy-w flee, gdvy-7 flight, Piva fright, 189 
guy-a-s runaway, Pvéi-s flight, @véi-wo-s run- 
away, ready to flee. 

Skt. bhug (bhug-a-mi) bend, bhug-na-s bent, bhiija-s 
arm, bhégd-s coil of a snake. 
Lat. fug-t-o, fug-a, fug-ax, fugitivu-s, fugare. 


222 ; BOOK II. 


Goth. biug-a ckéurto, NHG. biege bend, OHG. elin- 
bogo elbow (?). 
Lith. big-ti to be afraid, baug-w-s timid, frightful. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. iii. 530, Benf. i1. 20, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 123.—The 
idea of ‘flight,’ which is confined to the European languages, may well 
have developed itself from the notion ‘ bend out,’ ‘ bend round,’ ‘turn 
oneself’ (cp. rporn, tpémacov). — vga is for pvd-1a from pvy-ta. The g in 
the Teutonic words is explained by Grassmann xii. 121 by an aspirate 
which he says was once at the end of the root, so that it was once 
bhugh. This is however open to some doubt. Cp. Frohde ‘ Bezzenb. 
Beitr.’ 1, 251. 

164. dady-w, pd¢-w roast, bake, Poy-avo-v roaster, dox- 
To-s roasted. ; 
ON. baka, OHG. bahhuu bake. 

Benf. ii. 13, who refers these words to No. 162, Pott W. iii. 511. 
The Skt. words which used to be added here are to be kept quite 
distinct. For the Skt. bhak-td-s means according to the P.W. not 
‘cooked’ but only ‘distributed,’ and bhadg-ana-m ‘cask,’ ‘ vessel.’ — 
On the other hand it is probable that ofi-xeXo-s, hofd-s ‘ pointed,’ 
properly ‘burnt out of shape’ (of earthen vessels), the latter used of 
the pointed head of Thersites (Hes. dfuxepados) B 219 (Buttm. ‘Lexil.’ 
i, 242), are connected with goyew. Pott, who (ii. 322) says this 
explanation is ‘dictated only by despair,’ pays no attention to the 
word ¢o€ixevAos, which is well attested from Simonides in ‘ Athen.’ xii, 
480, and proposes himself still more desperate explanations. 


X 


Greek y corresponds to Indo-Germanic gh. This letter is 
represented in Sanskrit by gh, or h, in Zend by g, gh, j, 2, zh, 
in. Latin by A, or in the middle of a word by g, in Gothic by g, 
in Church-Slavonic by g, z, 4, in Lithuanian by g, 2, in Old Irish 
by g. On the traces of an original double gh see p. 87. 


165. Root apy &pxw am the first, dpy-d-s leader, apy-7 
beginning, rule, dpya-io-s at the beginning, old, 
dpx-wv (st. dpxovr) ruler, épy-apo-s leader. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 223 


Skt. arh (drh-d-mi) am worth, am able, arh-a-s 190 
worthy, drh-an (st. arhant) able, worth, argh-d-m 
value, gift of honour, argh-ja-s valuable. — Zd. 
are) deserve, be worth, arej-anh (from argh-as) 
value. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott. W. iii. 740 though doubtfully, Benf. i. 112. Fick 
leaves the Gk. words out altogether.—When the agreement in sound 
is so complete it is hard to doubt the identity of the two roots. The 
fundamental notion common to the two is that of ‘ worth,’ it may be 
that of ‘ splendour :’ dpyew Adumew (Hesych.), though M. Schmidt ques- 
tions the gloss. As regards the further developement of meanings we 
must remark that érh-a-mui, like dpx-o, is used as a kind of auxiliary with 
the infinitive, the former in the very colourless meaning ‘I can,’ ‘I 
may; again that the word is constantly used of religious services and 
ceremonies (cp. Skt. arghd-m), as in drapxopat, drapxn, cpxpara (Hesych.) 
=<dpypara & 446 ‘primitiae,’ xardpxouat, mpoodpxoua, (L. Herbst ‘On 
Cobet’s emendations in Thucydides’ p.9), We are reminded in trdp- 
xew ‘to be at hand’ of the meaning ‘to have the power to.’ The 
somewhat different use of apyec@a for ‘to begin,’ as distinguished from 
the carrying out of the affair, does not occur frequently till the Odyssey, 
though it certainly can be recognized in the Homeric dp xn, e& dpyns.— 
dpx-ano-s is rightly regarded by Benf. i. 114 as a superlative form 
(cp. Pott ii. 461), o by the side of a as in éyko-s (No. 1) cp. Lobeck 
‘ Proleg.’ 295.— Besides argh there is also adduced a Skt. root ragh of 
similar meaning. May we not regard this as the connecting link with 
the Goth. ragin Sdypa, raginin iyepoveverr, fidur-ragineis rerpapxav with 
the words which Diefenb. ii. 155 adds from other Teutonic languages ? 
A still bolder step would it be to connect, with Jac. Grimm, who is 
there quoted, the Germ. ragen (project), and even regen (stir), however 
well the former would serve for the primary meaning of the root. 
The Goth. verb finds considerable resemblance in the Lith. rdg-in-ti 
‘compel,’ ‘summon.’ We may perhaps be said to have succeeded in 
this way in rescuing dpy and arh from their remarkable isolation. 
— This root is carefully discussed, especially with reference to its 
meanings, by Autenrieth in the ‘ Miinchner Gymnasial-zeitschr.’ 1868 
p- 256, where dpyo is set down as a duplicate of épyoua (below p. 701). 
But the difficulty of explaining the change of meaning seems even 
greater than if our account of the words is accepted. — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
vili. 322 connects the Ir. arg ‘ hero.’ 


166. Root dy @yx-e tie tight, strangle, ayx-ryjp clasp, 
compress, éyyx-dvn hanging, dyx-1, ayyx-od near, 
dx-vu-fal, axX-0-“al, ax-evm am in grief, am 


224, BOOK Il. 


troubled, &y-os anguish, affliction, dy-6-os burden, 
dyx-0-o-wa: am burdened, troubled. 

Skt. ah-u-s narrow, pressure, ¢h-as, éh-a-ti-s tribu- 
lation, agh-d-s tormenting, bad. — Zd. agh-a-na 
(n.) contraction, noose, az-anh straits, anguish, sin. 

Lat. ang-0, ang-us-tu-s, ang-or, ang-ina, quinsy, 
Angitia (Ital. goddess), anxiu-s. 

Goth. aggv-ja, ga-aggv-ja contract, aggu-u-s narrow, 
OHG. angu-st anguish. — Goth. 6g am fright- 
ened, ag-is fright. 

ChSl. az-a decpds, az-ti-kt angustus, Lith. dnkszta-s 
narrow. 

191 OlIr. cum-ang angustus (Corm.), cwm-ung angor, ochte 
angustia, agathar timet (Z?. 873, 68, 438). 


The physical meaning ‘squeeze’ is clearest in ayy, ango; hence 
come the adjectives with the meaning ‘narrow,’ ‘ near ’ (docov=Skt. 
qahija(n)s), from which éyyis must not be separated (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 
270). Pott i?. 234 compares the Fr. prés from presse, and is no doubt 
right in tracing the s to the -6 in éyyi-& (cp. 66-s= 66-4). The comp. 
dooov=dyx-tov, together with the Homeric docorépw, helps us to the 
Homeric én-accv-repo (v Aeol.=o). ay-pt (cf. t8-pi-s) ‘as far as’ may 
also be related. The transition into the region of mind is seen in the 
Lat. angor ‘animi vel corporis cruciatus’ (Paul. ‘Epit.’ p. 8), etymo- 
logically equivalent to the angus that is at the bottom of angus-tu-s 
and distinguished from ayos, Goth. agis only by the added nasal. 
dy-6-os with added 6, which Pott W. 111. 1052 connects with the Skt. 
sah (No. 170), seems to me rather to be ‘that which cramps one.’ 
8xdo-s, which Fick i°, 481 connects, only agrees with this root in its 
meaning ‘unpleasantness ’ (cp. évoxdeiv), cp. No. 169.— Besides these 
there occur the rarer words ’ayjv (Theocr.) ‘ needy,’ ’aynv-ia (ypnydrov 
‘lack,’ Aesch. ‘Choeph.’ 298 Herm.), nyjv-es mrwxot Hesych., which 
seem to come near to the Lat. eg-e-0, ind-ig-e-o, eg-énu-s. — Grimm 
‘Worterb.’ s.v. Angst, Schweizer ‘Ztschr.’ i. 152, Aufrecht i. 355, 
Kuhn iii. 64, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 42, Pauli ‘ Praeterito-praesentia’ 19, 
Ebel ‘Beitr.’ ii. 159.— The OIr. cwm-ac ‘narrow,’ also given in Corm., 
is regarded by Ebel Z?. 172 and Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 166 as identical 
with cum-ang. Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 205 identifies with the Skt. 
ahas the OIr. ing in as cach ing ‘ex omni periculo’ (Z?, 633). 


166 b. Bpéx-o I wet, Bpoy-7, Bpoy-erd-s a wetting. — Lat. 
rig-a-re, in-rig-uu-s. — Goth. rign Bpoxy, rign- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 225 


jan Bpéxeyv, OHG. régan rain, réganén to rain. — 
ChSL. vlag-a humor, vlaz-iti humefacere. 


Benf. i. 329, who with others connects the word with the Skt. varsh 
(fecn No. 497). In that case varsh would stand for vark-sh, and this 
would have arisen from vargh-s with suffixed s. We can be sure of 
nothing beyond the rt. vragh, the v of which has turned to B in Gk. 
and has fallen away in Lat. and the Teutonic languages. Corssen 
‘ Beitr.’ 505. —Otherwise Fick i°. 720.—The identity assumed by Ebel 
‘ Beitr.’ ii. 174 and Stokes viii. 323 between the Goth. rign and the 
Olr. bréen ‘ pluvia’ is not clear. 


167. dorrxd-s long, ddAryo-s long race-course, év-dedex-7)8 
lasting, év-deA€éxeva continuance, év-dede x é-w con- 
tinue. — AovAix.o-v Long Island. 

Skt. dtrghd-s (comp. dragh-yas) long, dragh-mdn, 
dragh-i-mdn length. — Zend dareghé long. 
ChSl. dliig-%, Lith. t/ga-s long. 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott W. ii. 859, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 105.— Leo Meyer 
‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 223 and Grassmann xii. 127 suggest connexion with the 
Goth. drag-a ‘slow. Gr. is quite right in giving dhragh as the root, 
of which we can actually discover a trace in the Skt. (dhragh by the 
side of dragh). The Lat. trah-o must be rejected on account of its ¢ 
(cp. Corssen ‘Nachtr.’ 107). But the ChSl. driz-ati ‘tenére’ comes 
very near to the Goth. drag-an, and can in its turn hardly be 192 
separated from the Skt. darh, Zd. darez ‘make fast,’ ‘hold fast.’ In 
another direction we are met also by the Skt. dhrag ‘skim, sweep, 
pass’ (of birds), to which belongs dhragi-s ‘train.’ Are we to think 
that dhar-gh is a form that has grown out of dhar ‘hold’ (No. 316), 
and that all the meanings are developed from the notion of ‘holding 
out,’ ‘holding on?’ Miklosich also (‘ Lex.’) suggests the connexion 
of dargh and dris-ate with dhar.—longu-s and the Goth. lagg-s belong 
to No. 147. 


168. éAay-v-s small, eAdoowr, EAdxioTO-s. 
Skt. lagh-v-s (also ragh-%-s) quick, small, /éghtja(n)s, 
léghishtha-s, rt. rgh hurry (trans.). 
Lat. lév-i-s, levi-ta-s, levare. 
OHG. lih-ti. 
Ch8l. lig-a-ku& levis, Lith. léngv-a-s facilis, lenis. 
Olr. laig-tu minor, /ug-em minimus, lag-ait parvitas. 
Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. iii. 713, Benf. ii. 26, Schleich. ‘ChSI.’ 106.— 
The positive is only used in the fem., but it is preserved in the Pindaric 
Q 


226 BOOK II. 


compound éAaxv-rrépvé. But éAdyea is now written by I. Bekker with 
Zenodotus at « 116, « 509; so too Baumeister ‘Hymn. in Apoll. Pyth.’ 
19. Otherwise Déderl. ‘Gl.’ 2062. There is no sufficient ground 
for the interpretation ‘rough,’ that is given for Ad,ea by Nitzsch on 
« 116, and approved of by Lobeck ‘ Path. Proleg.’ 177. The relation- 
ship of édéyx-o ‘I disgrace,’ ¢deyx-os ‘probrum,’ éAeyxées ‘ cowardly ’ 
to these words is very doubtful; they are compared in the P.W. 
i. 1040 rather with the Zend eregh-ant ‘bad’ and the Germ. arg 
‘bad.’— The Lat. le(g)v-i-s has an added z as the Lith. déngv-a-s an 
added a, the é in Gk. is prothetic.—Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ xv. 316 con- 
nects the OHG. ringt (which in Switzerland still means ‘ light’), to 
which the Germ. gering ‘small’ belongs. 

169. Root éy, Fey dx-o-s carriage, dxé-o-yar drive, ride, 
dxet-w leap, cover (of horses and other animals), 
dxn-pa vehicle, dy-Ao-s crowd, dyAé-@ I trouble, 
dx-e7d-s gutter, canal. 

Skt. vdh (vdh-d-mi) lead, ride in a carriage, vahd-s 
draught-animal, va@hana-m draught-animal, car- 
riage, vahint train, army. ) 

Lat. veh-o, vehi-culu-m, vehe-s vehicle, vec-tura, via, 
vexo, vélu-m. 

Goth. ga-vig-an cadevev, ga-vag-ja move, vég-s 
movement, végds (plur.) waves, vig-s via, OHG. 
wag-an currus, waga libra. 

ChSI. vez-a veho, voz-% currus, ves-lo oar, Lith. veg-w 
lead, ride in carriage, veg-ima-s carriage, vézé 
cart-rut. 

Oly. fén plaustrum (Z?. 766). 

Bopp ‘G1. Pott W. iii. 1023, 11%. 639, Benf. i. 351, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 
109, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 104, cp. Savelsberg ‘Quaestiones lexicales de 
radicibus graecis’ (Berol. 1841), where the whole of ¢xyo is referred 
to this root. But I cannot agree with him for two reasons: firstly, 
because it is not made out that the o in é-cx-o-v, cyn-oo, etc., could 
arise from fF; secondly, because the meaning ‘hold to,’ ‘hold fast,’ 
which is prominent in éy does not suit. I assume an intermingling 
of the rts. vagh and sagh, and only give here the words which un- 

193 doubtedly belong to vagh. The several languages mutually explain 
each other by their different applications of the fundamental notion 
‘move’ (trans.), (1) to riding in a carriage or boat, (2) to the surging 
of water, (3) to metaphysical relations (éxA¢-@ vewo). Under the first 
head comes the Lat. via (by-form vea Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ i%, 98, cp. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 227 


Paul. ‘Ep.’ 368 ‘veia apud Oscos dicebatur plaustrum’), which occurs 
again in the Osc. vid (Mommsen ‘U. Dial.’ p. 260) and finds a direct 
analogy in the Lith. vé%é(é=7ia), under the second perhaps éxdo-s and 
the Skt. vahini as ‘a surging mass.’ That vélu-m belongs to this root 
is proved by vewxillu-m, which is evidently a diminutive of vélu-m 
(Schwabe ‘ Demin.’ p. 96). vélu-m stands for *vec-s-lu-m, as is shown 
by Osthoff ‘ Forschungen’ i. 196. As pi-lu-m is ‘that which pounds’ 
(rt. pis), so vélu-m is‘ that which moves.’ véldre it is best to keep se- 
parate (No. 527).—éxev-s ‘lever’ suggests vectt-s of similar meaning and 
the Norwegian vag (f.) ‘lever’ (Bugge ‘Ztschr.’ xx. 24), and clearly 
shows the fundamental meaning of the root; this is also visible, trans- 
ferred to motions of the mind, in the Homeric 6y6jcas ‘excited,’ ‘roused’ 
(Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’ i. 123); this has nothing to do with #y6ero (No. 166), 
but suggests rather the Lat. vehe-men-s, though this is explained in a 
completely different way by Ascoli ‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 268. Traces of the 
F are visible in ovv-coypd-s ‘joint’ (Iliad), éexypévn’ cvvexopévn Hesych.— 
The Ir, fén stands for *fegn, like Benén for Benignus, cp. the English 
wan. 


170. Root éy, cey €y-w have, hold, €y-o-uar hold myself, 
cling to, €-cy-o-v, ox7-cw, €-cyn-Ka, oKXé-cI-s, 
oxj-pwa bearing, cxo-Aq stoppage (holding up), 
e€eins holding on to each other, cye-ddéy near, 
isx-@ hold on, have, icyavd-w hold, éx-upé-s, 
6x-up6-s firm. 

Skt. sah (séh-é) master, sustain, séh-as power, vic- 
tory, séh-uri-s forcible, sah-ana-s powerful, en- 
during. — Zd. hazanh force, robbery. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 751, Giese ‘ Aeol. Dial,’ 245, Aufrecht 
‘Ztschr.’ i. 355, where the AS. szg-or (st. sig-ora) and the Goth. s¢g-cs 
‘victory’ are also rightly compared and explained by the similar use 
of the Skt. sah. The fundamental notion is ‘hold out,’ swstinere: in 
Gk. it has faded almost to nothing, though it is most visible in éexupés, 
and in the proper name “Exrap. Cp. No. 169.—Those words are more 
especially given here which particularly compel us to keep them 
separate from the rt. Fey, from which e. g. cxe-ddy cannot easily be 
derived, which is exactly the opposite of the notion of ‘away’ which 
we hold to belong to that root, nor oxo-An, nor its opposite d-cxaA-day, 
d-cxadd-ewv ‘to be impatient.’ —i-cy-o is reduplicated (‘Gk. Verb’ p. 
543).—ioxd-s ‘strength’ seems to lie very near, but it has traces of an 
initial digamma, and hence has been placed under No, 592, Cp. Ahr. 
‘Dor.’ p. 47, 

Q 2 


194 


228 BOOK II. 


171. €y-ivo-s urchin. — OHG. ig- il urchin (Germ. Jgel). 
— ChSI. je2-%, Lith. eg-7-s (?). 

Pott W. iii. 99, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 111, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 498.— 
The suffixes are different, but the stem is unmistakeably the same. 
The Armen. oznz comes very near to the Gk. form (Hibschmann 
‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 25). On the suffix wo cp. ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 87. Pictet 
‘Ztschr.’ vi. 186 and No. 40. 

172. €xu-s (m. and f.), €xu-dva adder, éyxedu-s eel. — 
"Exiov. 
Skt. Ghi-s (m.). — Zd. azhi (m.) snake. 
Lat. angui-s (m. and f.), anguilla. 
OHG. une adder, ON. 6g-li-r coluber, OHG. dl eel 
(Germ. Aal) (?). 
Lith. ang-is snake, ung-ury-s eel, ChSl. ag-ori-stt eel. 

Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. i111. 99, Forstem. ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 46, Kuhn iu. 64, 
where some objections are successfully disposed of. The Lithuanian 
word throws the clearest light upon the Lat. form, which, like the Gk. 
éyxedv-s, is nasalized. The latter is, like anguilla, a diminutive. Kuhn 
moreover compares with the Indic Ahi-s the Norse sea-god Agi-r.— 
Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 187.—The root is dy, dyx ‘squeeze,’ ‘strangle’ (No. 
166), the snake is accordingly called ‘ constrictor. — On égu-s p. 464. 

173. Root Aey A€éx-os bed, A€x-rTpo-v couch, d-Aoxo-s (f.) 
bed-fellow, \ex-@ a woman in child-bed, Aoy-ela 
child-birth, A\6yx-o-s insidiae, Ady-p7 thicket. 

Lat. lec-tu-s, lect-tca. 

Goth. lig-a ketpat, lag-ja TiOnpi, igr-s couch, OHG. 
laga insidiae. 

ChSl. leg-a-tt ketcOat, lég-a-ti decumbere, loZ-e 
lectus. 

Olr. lige bed, laige lying. 

Pott W. ii. 606, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 410, Buttmann ‘ Lexil.’ ii. 90, 
where Aék-ro ‘laid himself down,’ A¢erar ‘ will lay himself down,’ are 
rightly regarded as unconnected with the rt. Aey. Hesychius’s Aaypoy 
i) Naypos KpaBBdrvov is remarkable ; it comes doubtless from some dialect 
that abolished the aspirates (perhaps Macedonian), and bears only a 


chance resemblance to the Germ. Lager (OHG. legar) ‘couch ;’ again 


karexes (Meineke xadéxeo, Bergk xadéxeoo) kxaréxeuco Tddror from the 
same source, certainly belongs here, and must have arisen from xar- 
Aex.., and is apparently therefore an example of this root in the 
present-stem that has elsewhere disappeared (Bergk ‘de titulo Arcad.’ 


ad 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 229 


p. ix). — Magnus v. Lingen ‘ Die Wurzeln Aey und Aey’ Leipz. Disser- 
tation, 1877. 
174. Root Aty Aefyx-@, ALy-Ha-@, ALx-a-¢w lick, lick over, 
--Atx-avd-s the forefinger, Aly-vo-s greedy. 

Skt. lih (léh-mi) and rih (rih-a-mi) lick, lick over. 

Lat. li-n-g-o, lig-uri-o. 

Goth. bi-laigd-n émideiyewv, OHG. lécchén. 

ChSl. liz-a-ti Nefyewv, Lith. léz-i% lick, Miz-u-s fore- 

’ finger. 

Olr. légim lingo, ligur tongue. 

Bopp ‘Gl. Pott W. iii, 1011, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 410.—The Lat. 
lingua however near it may seem at first sight to be (cp. Lith. lézuvi-s 
‘tongue ’), must not be compared, as it had an older form dingua= 
Goth. twggé, which comes from the Indo-Germ. dang-vé or dangh-vé.— 
The coincidence in the meaning of Aryavd-s and the Lith. Miz-u-s is 
striking (Benf. 11, 28). 

175. Root uty o-piy-é-w@ (@uEa, inf. aui~ar Hesych.) 
mingo, 6-piy-ya urina, ouiy-Ay, Att. ducyAn mist, 
porx-0-5 adulterer. 

Skt. mih (méh-d-mi) mingere, semen effundere, 
méh-a-s urina, mth (f.) sediment, mist, méghd-s 
cloudy weather, cloud, méh-ana-m membrum 
virile. — Zd. miz urinate, bedrip. 195 

Lat. mt-n-g-0, méj-o0, mic-tu-s. 

AS. mig-e, Goth. mathstu-s muck, ON. mist-r caligo 
aeris. 

Lith. myg-% mingo, ChSl. mig-la, Lith. mig-la cloud. 

Bopp ‘ GI.,’ Pott W. iii. 1003, Benf. ii. 43, ep. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 261.— 
The Lat. mé-j-o is no doubt rightly explained by Joh. Schmidt 
‘Vocal,’ i. 135 to be from mezg-jo.— Lottner ‘ Ztschr, xi. 164 is right 
in connecting the Goth. mzh-ma ‘ cloud,’ which is often compared with 
the above words (Diefenbach ‘G. Worterb.’ ii. 71), with the ChSl. 
mrak-t% axdv-s.—On the prothetic o see p. 724. 

176. mhyxv-s forearm, elbow. — Skt. bahi-s, baha-s, Zend 
bdzu arm. — ON. bég-r, OHG. buoe bend (in the 
arm or leg). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott i. 109, Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 79, viii. 241.— Grass- 
mann xii. 121, after whose investigations we must give a stem with 
initial and final aspirates, bhaghu, from which all the compared words 
can easily be derived. So too Fick 1°, 155. 


230 BOOK It. 


176 b. Root cnepy omépyx-o-par I hurry, o7épy-o I urge, 
omepx-vo-s hurried, hasty, omépy-dnv éppapévas 
(Hesych.), d-cmepyx-és hastily, eagerly. 

Skt. sparh (sprh-aja-mi with dat. or gen.) to be eager 
for, envy, sprh-& desire. — Zd. cparez strive. 

The fundamental notion of hasty movement is preserved more 
intact in the Gk., while in Skt. that of a striving after an object, 
towards an object, is prominent. The transition in the former lan- 
guage by which it is used to denote ‘anger’ is significant: Pind. 
‘Nem.’ i. 40 Ocdv Bacidéa orepxOcioa buy, Herod. v. 33 eorépxeto to 
"Apiotaydpn, omépkopa' opyoOjocopa, éomepEdpnv' nmeidnoa, @pyicOnv 
(Hesych.), so in the latter language is the idea of ‘desire;’ and 
these two uses of the word are related to each other as the Skt. 
kup-ja-mi ‘am angry’ is to the Lat. cwp-to. The meaning ‘ invidere’ 
as in (nAotv.— Cp. also the proper names Smépyis, Srépywv, Srepxvros, 
Srepxetds.— Perhaps spargh is a lengthened form of spar (cp. No. 389 
and the Zd. ¢pare-d ‘be zealous for’).— d-omepx-és must be for dv-orep- 
xés, Cp. d-rev-ns and dBavrecow" dvaBaow Hesych. 

177. Root ctiy ore/y-w go, oTixo-s, TTOLXO-§ LOW, OTLXG-0- 
jac march in rank. 

Skt. stigh (stigh-nu-v-é) hop (not authenticated). 

Goth. steig-a dvaBaive, staig-a path (Germ. Steigq), 
OHG. stég-a ascensus, semita, MHG. steig-el steep 
(Germ. stei/). 

ChSl. stig-nq-tt venire, sttz-a (=stig-ja) .semita, 
Lith. staig-u-s hasty, statg-ini-s steep (Nesselm.). 

Olr. t¢agaim I go, im-tiagam (apdiorefyopev) ambu- 
lamus. 

Bopp ‘GL.’ Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 110, Benf. i. 648 f., Pott W. iii. 721, 
Stokes *Beitr.’ vil. 44.—ocrovyeio-v is to be derived from croixo-s (Pott 
ii”, 191 and Max Miller ii. 78) in the sense of ‘member of a row,’ 
whence xara orotxeiov ‘in alphabetical arrangement’ (cp. crorynddv, 
orouxicew), 

178. Root tpey tpéx- (fut. Opééw) run, rpdxo-s a course, 
Tpox6-s wheel, 7p6x-1-s a runner. 

Goth. thrag-ja rpéxo, AS. thrdég cursus, decursus 
196 temporis. 
Olr. traig pes, ace. pl. traigid (st. traget). 

Pott ii’. 123, W. iii. 821, Zimmer ‘Suff.a’ 254. On rayv-s ep. 
No. 231.— Here belongs also the OGall. ovéprpayo. (ver-trag-u-s) 
modwxers kuves Z?, 1453; cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viil. 324. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. ZOOL 


179. Root ya, yav yalv-o, xd-ox-@ gape, yawn, yd-opa, 
xa-os cleft, abyss, yad-vo-s gaping, loose, ye-.é 
cleft, hole, y7#-~n gaping, xdv-vn hiatula (name 
of a fish). 

Skt. ha@ (3 sing. midd. gé-hi-té) jump, flinch, vi-ha 
open oneself, gape. 

Lat. hi-se-o, hi-o, hid-tu-s. 

ON. gin gape, OHG. gi-é-m, gin-é-m, gein-d-m. 

ChSl. zi-ja-ti, 2é-ja-ti, zi-na-ti hiare, Lith. 26-j-u 
open the mouth wide, 2id-éi-s cleft, hole. 

Pott W. 1. 67, 74, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 110.— Other connected words, 
occasionally doubtful, are given by Pott and Benf. ii. 188, ‘ Ztschr.’ 
vii. 58, vill. 187, where the second part of the Skt. compound wi-hajas 
‘air’ is identified with yd-os. I doubt however with Pott ii?. 339 the 
change of v to 7 supposed by Benfey. For while xd-os was certainly 
xaf-os originally, it was by a lengthening of xa that yaf was arrived 
at (p. 65), since xad-vo-s supposes the same secondary form of the 
root, The change of a to « is testified to by xed, Le. xe-ud, and 
from this it is but a step to the Lat. hi-sc-o for *he-sc-o with the 7 that 
appears in the Teutonic and Slavonic languages. he becomes Aza as in 
the German weak verbs, perhaps with the help of an intermediate 
noun-form answering to yed.-——Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 132 has a 
different view with regard to these sound-changes. 

180. Root yad yavd-dv-@ (€-xad-ov, Ké-xavd-a, xeicopat) 
grasp, hold. 

Lat. pre-hend-o, hed-era (2). 
Goth. bi-git-an find, AS. gitan, Eng. get. 

Pott i’. 142, Benf. u. 108, with whom we may safely suppose con- 
nexion with the Skt. hds-ta-s ‘ hand,’ perhaps also with the Lat. has-ta, 
but, on account of lack of sound-change, not with the Goth. hinthan 
‘take prisoner. pre-hend-o is for prae-hend-o; praeda must be for 
prae-hid-a from the unnasalized root. Praedium either belongs here, or 
like prae(d)-s (rt. vad) to No. 301.— The German compounds of fassen 
‘grasp’ (e.g. umfassen ‘embrace,’ ‘comprehend,’ erfassen ‘take,’ ‘seize’) 
illustrate completely the different meanings.— Joh. Schmidt ‘Vocal.’ i. 
73 regards the Lith. pa-si-gend-da ‘yearn for,’ géda-s ‘ covetousness,’ 
and the ChSl. #¢d-a-ti ‘desire’ as connected. Windisch ‘Stud.’ vil. 
184, and Fick i°. 576, start from a rt. ghadh appearing in Skt. in 
the form gadh (rivet), in the other languages as ghad. In this 
way Windisch connects koad-s too (for xeO-jo-s) with hed-era, Cp. 
Van. 239, 


197 


232 BOOK Il. 


181. ydda¢-a (for yadad-ja) hail, xadagay to hail. 
Skt. hrdd-t%ini hailstones, hail. — Zd. zrdd to rattle. 
Lat. grand-o (st. grand-en), grandinat it hails, sug- 
grund-a the eaves. 
ChSl. grad-% yarag¢a. 

Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 105, cp. Pott ii. 199. — The derivation from the 
Skt. rt. Arad, i. e. ghrad ‘ resound,’ ‘ clatter,’ is probable. xdAaga has 
certainly nothing to do with yadd-w ‘to let loose’ (Lob. ‘ Proleg.’ 
359).— The first a in the Gk. word is due to anaptyxis (see below 
p- 730). Since the Skt. hrdd, as is shown by hrad-d-s ‘sea’ and 
hradini ‘ stream,’ is used of the noise of water, we may also compare 
ka-x\d{-o (rt. xAad) ‘plash,’ and with retention of the r xapdd-pa 
‘mountain torrent,’ ‘ravine.’ Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xu. 134 joins also 
the Goth. grét-an kdaiew [Eng. greet] to this root. Op. Fick i*. 581. 


182. yad-xé-s bronze. — Skt. hri-ku-s, hli-ku-s tin, lacker. 
— ChSl. zel-é-zo. Lith. gel-e-21-s iron. 

Benf. ii. 198, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 111.-—In spite of the difference be- 
tween the metals and between the derivative syllables, the connexion 
between these words may be regarded as proved, and the relationship 
to xdd-vp (st. xad-v8) as probable: the latter word finds a remark- 
able analogy in the Lith. pa-zleb-ctyju ‘ I steel’ (Nesselm., Potti'. 142). 
— Max Miller (ii. 231) denies the connexion between the Skt. words 
(cp. Fick i%. 578) which only occur in the dictionaries (P.W.) and 
xaA-xé-s. But if we take as the root the Skt. ghar ‘shine,’ the same 
from which the words for gold (No. 202) get their name, the relation- 
ship appears probable. The names of the metals and of the colours 
seem to have been determined in several instances by a certain con- 
vention within the boundaries of the several languages from roots of 
a most general meaning. Sonne ‘Ztschr.’ x. 98. 


183. yapa-i on the ground, yapa-¢e, yapud-dis to the 
ground, yayua-Oev from the ground, yap-nrd-s, 
xOap-ar6-s low, Xaptvvyn epithet of Demeter. 

Zd. zem (nom. zdo) earth. 
Lat. humu-s, humt, humu-m, humo, hum-ili-s. 
ChslL zem-l-ja (zem-ja), Bohem. zem-é, Lith. #ém-é 
land, ground, Zéma-s low, Zemgna the Earth 
Goddess. 
Pott i’. 142, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 109, ‘ Beitr.’ 397.—We must take 
ghama fem. ghama as the Indo-Germ. form, whence comes the Gk. yaya 
with its regular locative yayai=Lith. Xemai.—As x@apadd-s shows 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 233 


clearly an accessory 6, we may connect x4av as well, which may then 
be compared directly with the Zd. st. zem and be derived from x6op. 
We shall return to these words on p. 544. The Zin the ChSl. word 
is a purely phonetic adjunct. No. 179 might be suggested as the 
root, so that ya-ua (perhaps for xav-ya) is derivative, since all these 
words represent the earth as ‘that which is deep’ (cp. col xAdv01); 
cp. Tére pou xdvot etpeia yOav A 182.—F rom the noun stem are derived 
the names of man, the Lat. hom-o, the Lith. %m&, st. ¥mwn, with the 
plural form Zm-én-és, the Goth. gum-a (st. guman), the OHG. gom-o 
(cp. the Germ. Briiuti-gam ‘bridegroom’). In the Lat. at all events 
the oldest form (pl. homénes, hemdnes) favours the supposition of its 
origin from the noun (cp. petr-dnes ‘rustici a petris’ Fest.). Corssen 
‘Beitr.’ 244. The same view is evident in émtyddmo1, émt x9ovi cirov 198 
edovres.— The attempt made by Hovelacque (‘ Revue de linguist.’ i. 4) 
to derive homo from the rt. ghu (Gk. xv No. 203) is foiled by the e in 
hemones and the a in -gam. Moreover the word is nowhere found de- 
noting man as opposed to woman, which according to H.’s explanation 
of it as ‘ adspergens’ would be its only suitable use. Cp. Corssen ii’, 4. 
184. yapo-s kapumvddos (Hesych.). — Lat. hamu-s hook. 

Pott 1°. 142, Benf. 11. 321, where a good deal of irrelevant matter is 
introduced.— The Gk. word cannot be relied on with security, as 
xaBos, and xaios are given with the same meaning. No substantive 
xapd-s seems to have occurred.—Leo Meyer ‘ Bezzenb. Beit.’ iti. 155 
considers hamu-s to be a mistaken spelling for d-mu-s (Gmdtu-s here 
and there in the MSS. of Lucretius) and connects it with the rt. aik 
‘bend.’ 


185. Root yap yalp-w rejoice, yap-d, yadp-pa joy, yap-i-s 

grace, favour, xapifouer I favour, yapi-ers graceful. 

Skt. har (hdrya-mt) with ace. desire, with loc. enjoy 
oneself, har-ja-td-s dear. | 

Lat. grd-tu-s, grat-ia, Ose. her-est, Umbr. heriest 
volet, Osc. Herentatei (Veneri 2). 

Goth. fathu-gair-n-s greedy of money, OHG. gér, 
girt cupidus, géri, girt aviditas, gérén to desire 
(Germ. begehren). 

Lith. gere-ti-s to enjoy oneself. — ChSl. Ze/-e-tz, 
Zel-a-tt cupere. 

The words here placed together have found a place in etymological 
combinations of the most different character. Bopp’s connexion of 
‘xaipo with the Skt. harsh ‘delight oneself, ‘become torpid,’ (‘ Gl.’), 
that reoccurs in Pott W. 1. 566 (cp. 11. 1, 215) accompanied by a ‘ per- 


234 BOOK It. 


haps’ (cp. Benf. ii. 111), is met by the objection on phonetic grounds 
that there is not a trace of the sibilant to be found in the Gk.— 
Corssen i% 468 arranges many of these words under the rt. har 
‘grasp,’ ‘take’ (No. 189), to which the Osc. her-t-iad ‘ capiat’ may 
possibly belong, but ‘to take’ is by no means the same thing as ‘to 
desire,’ ‘to wish,’ so that it seems to me safer to treat the Osc. herest 
‘volet’ asa completely distinct word.— Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 107 and Max 
Miiller (ii. 371) take the Skt. ghar (har) ‘glow,’ ‘shine’ to be the root of 
xaipw and xapis. This root explains xap-o7rd-s ‘sparkling,’ ‘twinkling, — 
used by poets from Homer (A 611) downward as an epithet of the 
lion (cp. ai@ov), of the sea (Soph. fr.), of the moon, by prose-writers as 
the name of a darkish colour, especially in the eye,—and also the 
poetic word xdpev of essentially the same meaning. Cp. also Fulda 
‘Untersuchungen’ p. 194. These words are without doubt to be 
compared with the Indian colour names hdri-s ‘ fire-coloured,’ ‘ golden- 
yellow,’ hdrit ‘ golden-yellow,’ hdrita-s ‘yellow,’ ‘blonde.’ Perhaps 
from the meaning glow was developed (cp. dais No. 258) xdppn ‘ battle.’ 
Whether xapa* dpyq, épyitos Hesych. (cp. Skt. har hrnite ‘be angry’) 
belongs is doubtful, as the position of the gloss throws doubt on it, 
and M. Schmidt gives quite a different explanation of it.—I doubt 
whether there is any connexion between these words and those in the 
text, as there is no hint to be found in them of the idea of the ‘ glow 
of passion. — The Lat. grd-tu-s is traced in the P. W. and by Fick 
(i. 566) to a rt. gar (gur), from which comes the Skt. gir-td-s 
‘praised,’ ‘pleasant.’ As however the Lat. initial g before an 7 admits 
199 of being explained as a representative of a gh (cp. No. 181), I still 

prefer not to separate grdtia from the completely synonymous xdprs. 
186. Root yed yé¢-@ (ké-xo0d-a, ye-cod-par) cacare, ye- 
aeiw, y6d-avo-s buttocks. —Skt. had (hdd-a-mzt), 

Zd. zad cacare. 

Pott i’. 249, Benf. ii. 193, Fick i°. 576. — There are difficulties in 
the way of comparing the AS. scite, OHG. scizu, cp. Joh. Schmidt 
« Voc.’ 11. 472. 

-187. yedi-d-dy (st. yeAToov) swallow. — Lat. hirund-o 
(st. Airundon). 

Pott i’. 143, Benf. ii. 185, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ i. 123.—In spite of 
the different vowels in the middle of the words the identity of the 
two words can hardly be doubted. We must start from a Graeco- 
Italic xepevdov. « from ¢ after the suppression of a consonant, as in 
x\uor by the side of the Aeol. yeAdiox, Lat. « for e before m as in the 
gerund. If we started with xepwdov we should find it harder to ex- 
plain the uw of the Lat. form.—I do not see how to connect the Lith, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 235 


kregédé‘ swallow.’ For attempts see Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 204. — The com- 
binations of Férstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 48 and the doubts of Hugo Weber 
x. 247 (cp. above p. 78) cannot be allowed.— Doubtful conjectures 
as to the root are to be found in Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 129, Fick i°. 581. 


- 188. yédu-s, yed-dv, yedr-dvn (Acol. yeAvvn) tortoise, 
xéAv-o-v _tortoise-shell. — Skt. har-mu-fa-s tor- 
toise. — ChSlL. Zeltivt, Zelvt testudo, limax. 


Pott W.1. 85, Benf. ii, 280, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 111.— The suffix varies ; 
we may perhaps with Hugo Weber ‘Ztschr.’ x. 256 regard the Skt. ghar 
as the root; it appears in ghar-ghar-a-s ‘a cracking,’ ‘rattling,’ but 
also ‘owl,’ and in ghar-ghara ‘lute,’ ‘bell,’ in which case the animal 
would have got its name from the squeaking noise which it utters. 

189. Root yep xefp hand, ev-yep-rjs easy to handle (dvc- 
xepys), xép-ns subject (adj.), (comp. yxepelor, 
xelpov). 

Skt. rt. har (hdr-d-mi) catch hold of, bring, take, 
hér-ana-m a bringing, taking, arm. — Zd. zar-anh 
submission, zaraz-dd submissive. 

Lat. hér-é(d)-s, hér-éd-i-ta(t)-s,—hir-uido. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 205, Benf. ii. 108, Corssen i”. 468.— yelp 
has preserved its old stem-form xepi- yxeypt- in compounds (Roediger 
‘Comp.’ 58). The OLat. indeclinable ir (Air only in Charisius), which 
is translated by the Gk. Oévap, and consequently means only the 
flat of the hand, has been best discussed by Loewe ‘ Prodr.’ 328 f.— 
xépns (avdpi xépne A 80, cp. xelpto-s = tmoxelpios ‘ subject,’ and the Lat. 
man-cipiu-m) comes nearest to the Zd. words. — hér-é(d)s—cp. merc- 
é-d-s No. 467, Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 111, Paul, ‘Epit.’ 99, ‘heres apud 
antiquos pro domino ponebatur ’—comes from a verbal stem héré. The 
rt. har appears in precisely the same application in the Skt. a¢a- 
hard-s ‘receiving an inheritance’ (Goth. arbinumja). eru-s ‘ master,’ 
which I formerly compared, is quite a distinct word, for we now know 
that it is wrong to write it with the /, and that it had a by-form esa 
=era (Loewe ‘ Acta soc. philol. Lips.’ ii. 472 ff.).— But it is probable 
that xopd-s as ‘an enclosed dancing-place’ (cp. 8 260 Aeinvay S€ xopdv 200 
and edpvxopos), xép-ro-s in the sense of ‘ courtyard,’ which it shares with 
hor-tu-s, the Lat. har-a and co-hor(t)s, the Gk. xpévo-s in the sense of 
‘the enclosing barriers of time’ (Zd. zr-van, zrvdna ‘time’) are of the 
same origin. Then from the root with added dh we get the Goth. 
gard-s otkos, avdAn, bi-gaird-an mepilovviva, Lith garda-s ‘hurdle,’ — 
Xardi-s ‘horse-garden, ChSl. grad-t-ti ‘aedificare, grad-% ‘murus,’ 
‘hortus,’ ‘ civitas. To xdpros and hortus belongs the OIr. gort ‘ seges* 


236 BOOK It. 


(Z2, 68), lub-gort ‘ vegetable-garden,’ (Jub ‘ frutex ’).—As the root of all 
these words we may regard ghar (Gk. yep) which occurs metathesized 
(cp. Pott W. i. 94) in xpdw, xpdopa. xpdopar : yep 3: pydopar : pev 
(p. 311). With Fick (i°. 580) I regard ‘ grasp,’ ‘take,’ as the pri- 
mary meaning of the active, and ‘take to’ as.that of the middle. 
€xpn #) via will thus become synonymous with dveide, and had refer- 
ence originally, as I suppose, with Bergk (see his ingenious develope- 
ment of the idea ‘ Gr. Litteraturgesch.’ 1. 333), to the grasping of the 
sortes. — Stokes ‘Beitr.’ viii. 324) connects with this rt. ghar the Ir. 
gil ‘hand,’ and gid ‘leech,’ Corn. ghel sanguisuga (Z?. 1075). 
190. y7#v goose. — Skt. hasd-s fem. has-t. — Lat. ans-er. 
— OHG. gans. — ChSl. gast, Lith. Zasi-s. — Oly. 
geiss swan. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 105, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii, 261, who is 
doubtless right in referring the st. xnv to a form xevs, as wv is from 
a form pyvs, we may perhaps be right in regarding the fem. stem 
xevo-t=Skt. has-% for ghan-si as the primary form from which xyv 
arose (‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 85). The Lat. form has lost the % and taken a 
new suffix, still Keller (Jahn’s ‘Jahrb.’ 1863, p. 766) thinks we may 
see the h still remaining in herbilis hanser (Lucil. v. 11, Luc. Miiller), 
judging by the alliteration.— The oft-repeated etymology from xaive 
does very well so far as the meaning goes, but the s, which is found in 
the word in all languages, is against it. It seems to be an expansion 
of the root. Schweizer (‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 451) disagrees. — The Olt. géiss 
(Mag da gési ‘ Plain of the two Swans’) contains the stem ghanst. 

191. y#p (Hesych.) hedgehog. — Lat. hér or ér, hér-in- 
ac-eU-s OF ér-IN-Ac-eu-s. 

Pott W. 11. 2, 395, Benf. ii. 111, Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 186, but the 
connexion of the Skt. words which he adduces with the meaning 
‘snake’ (cp. No. 171, 172) does not appear to be proved. The re- 
lation of xnp to oxdp* éexivos (Hesych.) is not clear; M. Schmidt reads 
oxnp, but this reading 1s opposed by the alphabetical arrangement. 
Pictet 1. 454 considers the word as quite distinct and connects it with 
the Skt. Khur ‘ scratch,’ ‘ burrow.’ | 

192. y7-po-s bereft, empty, yj#pa widow, ynpev-m am 
bereft, empty, yn pd-m make empty, ywpis separate 
from, yxopi¢w separate. 

Skt. ha@ (ya-ha-mi) leave, abandon, ha-ni-s abandon- 
ment, loss. 

Bopp ‘GI,’ Pott W. i. 68, who compares also the Lat. héré-s (st. 
héréd)—cp. xnpworns ‘substitute,’ ‘heir,’ E 158—a comparison, which 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. Pye 


as it seems to me, the meaning forbids (No. 189). — Benf. ii. 190.— 
The same rt. xa ‘ gape’ (already discussed under No. 179) occurs also 
in the words x-r-0s, xa-ri-s ‘lack,’ yn-pa-pd-s ‘cleft,’ ‘ split’ (cp. xe-ia), 
xarifo, xaréw ‘want,’ xadd-o ‘let go,’ xadapd-s ‘slack’—the last two from 201 
a noun-stem yada, which bears the same relation to ya that cyo-Aa does 
to oxe and to which the yxadz in xadi-dpav is closely allied—lastly in 
xafoua ‘give way.’ Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 216 aptly compares with xa-ri-s 
the Lat. fa-ti-sc-ere ‘gape’ and ‘ dissolvi’ in the figurative sense, ad- 
fa-tim, fatigo, fessu-s, and on the other hand derives fa-me-s from the 
rt. gha. f=yx as in No. 203. Cp. Pott W. i. 88.—Fick i°. 78 con- 
nects also the Goth. gai-dv (neut.) ‘want, whence the Germ. Ceiz 
‘ eagerness.’ ! 


193. xOés, €-yOés yesterday, xO:¢6-s, yOeo-ivd-s of yester- 
day. 
Skt. jas yesterday, hjas-tana-s of yesterday. 
Lat. her-2, hes-ternu-s. 
Goth. gistra-dagis to-morrow, OHG. gésteron yester- 
day (Germ. gestern). 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ ‘Comp. Gr.’ 11. 208, Benf. 11. 208.— The primary form 
is ghjas. The initial letter will be treated later (p. 675). Hesychius’s 
gloss cepds* xOés ’Hdeioe is worthy of notice, but the now better under- 
stood peculiarities of the Elic dialect do not permit it to be identified 
with y@¢s.— Lob. ‘El.’ 147 adnot. is wrong.—As regards the meaning 
it is important to notice that as in Goth. so in the Vedas, at least ac- 
cording to the explanation of the Scholiasts to the latter (Benf. ‘ Lex. 
z. Samayeda’ 209, but not in the P.W.), the word is applied to the 
following day. 


194. Root yt xu-éy (st. xrov) snow, d’vc-yxi-o-s horrible, 
xet-ya storm, rainfall, yerwa¢-, xetuaiv-w raise 
a storm, raise a storm against, yiuerdo-v chil- 
blain, yecwov winter, xeipep-ivd-s wintry. 

Skt. hi-md-s adj. cold, subst. cold, himd-m snow, 
hima (subst.) cold, winter, A¢mdnt deep snow, 
héman (adv.) in the winter, hémanta-s winter. — 
Zd. zydo winter’s frost, zim, zima (m.) winter. 

Lat. hiem-s, htbernu-s. 

ChSl. zima hiems, tempestas, frigus, Lith. 2éma (f.) 
winter, Zémini-s wintry. 

Olr. gam, gaim-red winter, gdith ventus, OCymr. 

gaem, later gayaf, winter. 


bo 


238 BOOK II. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. iii. 96, Benf. ‘Gott. Anz. 1852’ p. 553 ff. — 
Though the words adduced are undoubtedly connected, they present 
many difficulties individually. We are obliged to refer yor, Zd. zydo 
and the Lat. hiem-s to a stem ghjam, so that the v of x.y must have 
come from » (Brugman ‘ Stud.’ ix. 308). The remaining words may 
be traced to the st. ghim or (intensified) ghaim by the help of various 
suffixes. Since an 7 appears in all the languages the favourite view 
of a connexion with ye-o rt. xv must decidedly be rejected. yetpor is 
a collective of xeiua, to xet-pep-wd-s and yxeupep-to-s dvo-yeipepo-s 18 a 
preparatory step. —It is not lawful to derive, as Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ 
v. 344 proposes, the numerous shorter forms all from xeywavr.— Auf- 
recht iv. 415 sees the shorter form hima which, like the Zd. zima, is 
used in counting years (¢atam himds ‘a hundred winters’), in the Lat. 
bi-mu-s, tri-mu-s, quadri-mu-s for bi-himu-s ete., and in support of 
this Miklosich ‘ Beitrage’ i. p. 287 adduces some remarkable analogies 
from Slavonic and Lithuanian. Cp. Pictet 11. 588 [‘Owens College 
Essays,’ p. 316].—From the Teutonic languages Fick i*. 583 con- 
nects the ON. gé ‘bad weather,’ Norweg. gid ‘nix autumni recens” 
specially as parallels to the Zd. word zydo; in these words the nasal 
has been lost. It is perhaps preserved in the ON. gem ‘sea,’ as 
my learned friend Zarncke thinks.— On the Irish words cp. ‘Stud.’ 
yu. 375. 


195. yiuapo-s he- or she-goat, yiwaipa (= yipap-ta) she- 
goat. — ON. gymbr one-year-old lamb. 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 402.— The relation to the OHG. geiz = Lat. 
haedu-s is doubtful. Benf. ii. 193 assumes that yi-papo-s has lost a 4, 
and would thus bring us to a stem xd preserved in the above-men- 
tioned words intact. Cp. Stier ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 212. — Fick 1°, 765 is 
probably right in adopting the old etymology given by Hesych. and 
Eustath., according to which xiyzapos = yemépios originally denoted 
the goats born in the previous winter, cp. No. 211. The Scholiast 
on Theocr. 1. 6 teaches us that it is only the goats under one year old 
that are called xizapor. No trace, however, of such meaning is to be 
found in xipacpa. 


196. Root yAad Ke-xAa&d-ds (Pind.) swelling, fresh, yAa- 
po-s fresh, gay. —Skt. hldd (hlad-é) refresh one- 
self, hlad-a-s refreshment, enlivenment. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ whom I cannot follow in the comparison of the AS. 
glid ‘laetus’ because the dental has not its proper substitute—Benf. 
li, 135. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 209 


197. yAdé-n verdure, grass, yAo-epd-s, xAw-pd-s greenish, 
yellowish, yAd-o-s green colour, yAod¢erv sprout. 

Skt. hdri-s, har-tt, hdr-ita-s, hari-nd-s yellowish, 
light-red, fallow. — Zd. zairi yellow, gold-coloured, 
zairina yellowish. 

Lat. hel-us (holus, olus), hel-vu-s, honey-yellow, hel- 
vo-la vegetables. 

OHG. gré-j-u gruo-j-w vireo, OS. gré-ni viridis. — 
OHG. gélo yellow. 

ChSl. zel-dje olera, zel-ent% viridis, Lith. Zel-iw vir- 
esco, Zol-€ herba, 2dl-ie-s viridis. — ChSl. 4lué-t%, 
Lith. gél-ta-s yellow. 

Olr. gel white. 


Bopp ‘GL.’ s. v. harit. Pott W. ii. 1, 207. Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 109, 
where more extensive conjectures are made on this root. Cp. Nos. 
200, 203. fld-vu-s too would be more rightly put with these words 
than with No. 161, since flava is an epithet of Ceres, as xAdn of 
Demeter ; folus (Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 84) helps to explain the change to f 
With Kuhn’s connexion of yAdo-s with the Lat. gilvu-s=Skt. gaura-s 
‘ yellow ’ (‘ Ztschr.’ i. 516) I cannot agree on account of the initial. 
But li-tu-m ‘yellow colour,’ whence li-t-eu-s, may well have lost an 
initial A and may so correspond in its first syllable to the yA in ydo- 
po-s. The latter word finds a still nearer connexion in the Lat. lari- 
du-s ‘ pale-yellow,’ ‘ fallow,’ as is shown by Frohde ‘ Ztschr, xx. 250 
(cp. Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 318).— xAdn is clearly for yAo-Fn, for which 
compare the Lat. words, which Corssen ii. 160 explains in several 203 
other ways. Fick 1°. 579 infers the existence of a rt. ghar, ghal 
‘sprout, ‘grow green,’ calling attention to yAe-pd-pa’ xdoavOovvra 
Hesych. The Phryg. ¢éAx-1a" Adyava Hesych. agrees with the Chl. 
zla-ku ‘ herba.’—Ir, gel belongs to OHG. gélo. 


198. yotpo-s a young pig. — Skt. ghrsh-vi-s, ghrsh-ti-s 
boar. — ON. grés-s porcellus | prov. Eng. grice, pig: 
so Grasmere for Gricemere. | 

Pott W. ii. 2, 387, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 37, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 
60, Pictet i. 373.— Hugo Weber ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 256 considers ghar as the 
root, whence the Skt. ghar-ghar-i-ta-m ‘ grunting noise,’ and derives 


xoipo-s (for xop-w-s) immediately from it. But the s appears to be 
essential in two languages. 


199. yordd-es guts, xdArE (st. xoArk) gut; yopdy gut. 
Skt. (Ved.) hira vein. 


240 BOOK II. 


Lat. haru-spex, har-i-olu-s, hira dim. hilla, her-n-ia 
ON. garn-ir pl. entrails. 
Lith. Zarna gut. 

Pott i. 143, Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ iii. 194 ff, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 213, 
‘Ausspr.’ i?, 509. hartolu-s (another form is fariolu-s) may be derived 
immediately from *har-ja, a form which we may suppose to have ex- 
isted, like famulu-s from fama (No. 309). On the 7 in hira see 
Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 412. her-n-ta ‘rupture of the intestines’ comes 
nearest to the Teutonic and Lithuanian forms. Fick i°, 581. 


200. yedro-s, xoAH gall, anger, xoA-.Kd-s bilious, yoAd-w 
am bilious, yoAcd-@ make bilious, enrage. 
fel, fellitu-s. — OHG. galldé. — ChSl. élii-ct, Zli-t% 
bilis. 

Pott W. ii. 1, 210, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 111.—Both are clearly right in 
bringing the words into connexion with No. 197, so that the gall got 
its name in that case from its green colour. ‘The suffix is different in 
the different languages, *fell is perhaps for fel-ti (cp. mel No. 465), 
though otherwise Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ v. 379, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 318 ; 
in Ch8l. &% or ¢@ is suffix and only the stem 4d is to be compared with 
yod. Cp. however Kuhn ‘ Ztschr,’ i. 516.— How the Lat. b2-s is to 
be referred to the same stem, I do not see, since the representation of 
an initial soft aspirate by the media in Latin is, in spite of Joh. 
Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 359, not properly established. Hence Corssen 
i2, 519 connects this word with gil-vu-s and the Skt. gdura-s ‘yellow’ 
with 6 for g (cp. below p. 472).—On the distinction between x04 and 

_ xddo-s see Lobeck ‘ Proleg.’ 11. 

200 b. Root ypen xpeu-ifw, xpepu-er-i¢m neigh, ypep-er-do 
resound, ypdéu-7, xpdu-o-s noise, neighing, ypop- 
ado-s creaking. — Zd. gran-té (rt. gram) incensed. 
— OHG. ga-grim a creaking, AS. grim-etan, OHG. 


gram-izzén murmur, hum. — Chsl. grtim-e-ti 
(vb.) thunder, grom-% (subst.) thunder, grim-a-ti 
sonare. 


Fick 1°.582, who also rightly connects Xpéeu-n-s, Xpeu-tdo-s the favourite 
names of cross-grained old men in comedy, perhaps too the OHG. 
gram ‘resentful,’ grim ‘rage, OHG. grimmida ‘ill humour,’ ete. 
Sren-d-ére is formed by the addition of a d, ep. xpdpu-ad-o-s, AS. grim- 
etan ‘ creak,’ ‘hum.’ — Cp. Pott W. ii. 2, 167. 

204 201. Root ypic ypi-w graze, besmear, ypi-ci-s anointing, 
Xpi-a, xpt-o-wa ointment. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 241 


Skt. rt. gharsh (ghdrsh-d-mi) rub, ghrsh-td-s flayed, 
sore, ghrsh-ti-s a rubbing. 


Benf. ii. 198, 375, Corssen i%. 517, on the formation of the tenses of 
xpi see ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 521, on the ¢ in face of the Skt. a. cp. Joh. 
Schmidt ‘Voc.’ 332.—For the primary meaning of xpiew, ‘ xpier pe 
oiorpos’ Aesch. ‘ Prom.’ 566 is important. — Perhaps friare contains the 
shortest form of the root; fricare has an added ¢, and we may suppose 
in this case that it is a derivative from a noun-stem frica ( fricae ‘a 
kind, of stone’ [a very doubtful word: ep. Munro’s ‘ Aetna’ v. 532] ) 
or frico (Corssen ‘Beitr. 207),—One feels a strong temptation 
to compare also xpoud, xpo-d, xpa-pa ‘colour,’ as being that which 
is rubbed on. But we are met by the fact that ypo-s in Homer 
means only ‘skin,’ and ‘skin-colour,’ and since the same meaning of 
‘skin’ is to be found in xpo.d, xpod, we must suppose colour to have 
been regarded as a skin drawn over the substance (cp. p. 114); just 
as col-or belongs to the rt. cel ‘occulere,’ ‘celare.’ Or is it that the 
surface in general is regarded as something ‘spread over,’ or ‘to be 
spread over ?’— ypipm-r-o ‘touch,’ ypaive ‘touch,’ ‘colour,’ ypav-w‘scrape,’ 
may be regarded as formations from the root before the addition of 
the s, even the Skt. gard, which, though usually meaning ‘to smell’ 
(intrans.), means also ‘to smell at, ‘to kiss,’ may perhaps be related 
(p. 526),— Cp. Pott W. 1. 98. Ascoli’s views (‘ Ztschr.’ xvii, 345, 
cp. Corss, i’. 802) are different, but they do not convince me. — Joh. 
Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ 11. 289 takes a different line. 


202. yxpuad-s, xpuvaio-v gold.—Skt. hir-ana-m, htr-arya-m, 
Zd. zar-anu, zaranya (n.) gold. — Goth. gul-th. 
—ChSl. zla-to. 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ p. 13, Miklosich ‘ Lex.’ s. v. zda-to. In the Slav. 
er-6-ti, Lith. Ser-é-tz ‘shine’ the root, which is the Skt. ghar, is preserved. 
From this root, the same already spoken of at Nos. 182,185, 197, and 
200, the oriental languages have formed the word for gold by suffixing 
-ana, the European by suffixing -fa. For the latter languages 
Schleicher in Hildebrand’s ‘ Jahrb. f. Nationalékon.’ i. p. 410 rightly 
gives ghar-ta as the primary form. From this come the Teutonic 
and Slavonic forms directly. xpvad-s, however, seems to point to a 
secondary derivative ghart-ja, whence xput-jo ; — and ghart-ja bears to 
gharta precisely the same relation that hiranja does to hirana. On 
the o cp. Delbriick ‘Stud.’ i. 2, 136, A trace of the formation with 
the suffix -na is to be seen in Hesych.’s xAov-vd-s xpvods. The Lat. 
representative of this stem is /d-tu-m, which we have already men- 
tioned at No. 197, whence comes dit-eu-s ‘golden-yellow. We may 

R 


242 BOOK II. 


add the Phryg. yAou-pd-s* xpuads, yAovpea’ xpioea (Hesych.), with the 
Eranic g for gh. 

208. Root yu yé(F)-@ (fut. xed-ow) pour, xv-wa, xed-pa, 
xv-ol-s, Xo-7} a pouring, stream, xé-o-s a heap of 
earth, xu-pd-s, xu-Ad-s juice. 

Lat. fo-n(t)-s, fu-ti-s (vas aquarium), ec-fu-ti-0, re- 
fi-to, con-fii-to, fu-n-d-o (st. fuid), fu-ti-li-s. 
Goth. giu-t-a pour (st. gut). [Germ. giesse.| 

905 Pott W.1 777, Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i, 120, Benf. 1. 194 with an un- 
successful comparison of Skt. words. — According to Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ii. 80 (cp. Déderlein ‘G1.’ 2065) io-xéF-aipa ‘sagittas fundens’ (8é\ea 
orovdevta xeovro O 590) belongs to this root. yeF-apa for xeF-ap-ta 
supposes a masc. xeF-apo-s, to which it is related as mietpa is to muapé-s. 
See moreover even so far back as the ‘ B. M.’ s. v. — yw-e-o6a is related 
to xé(F)-@ as mAd-o is to mde(F)-o. Even Aristarchus explained 
xodpevos ‘angry’ in this way by means of ovyxeduevos (cp. confusus 
animo) Lehrs ‘ Arist.’? 145.— We might be tempted to separate the 
Lat. fundo and the Goth. giuta entirely from the Gk. words, and to 
connect the former along with funda with the Gk. oerd-dyn (No. 296), 
if it were not for the Latin words, which point to a shorter stem fu. 
To these belong specially re-fu-to, con-fu-to. As to fu-ti-li-s Fleckeisen 
in the epistula critica prefixed to his edition of Plautus p.x follows 
Ritschl in recommending the spelling fut-tili-s, so that we should 
have to hold the first ¢ to be the representative of d, and other testi- 
monies to this way of writing the word are collected by Klotz on 
Terence ‘Andria’ p. 125. Paul. ‘Epit.’ p. 89 has preserved the 
proper meaning of fu-tili-s, vasa futilia a fundendo, so that a man is 
futilis who is ‘incontinent of speech,’ not able to keep silence. Nota 
trace of the d is to be seen in effutire ‘chatter.’ Cp. Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 
214, where fon(t)-s is doubtless rightly referred to a stem fov-ont identi- 
cal with xeF-ovr, cp. note to No. 192. (Otherwise Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 
399, Ascoli xvii. 346, Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 343.) These words have as 
little to do with gutta and guttur as with humor, more properly amor 
(No. 158). — Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ xiv. 268 and Pictet ii. 702 following 
Kuhn (‘Ztschr.’ ii. 470, cp. Grassmann xi. 40) have made it very 
probable that the Skt. hu ‘sacrifice,’ properly ‘to pour into the fire’ 
(P.W.), belongs, not, as I formerly held, to 6d-« (No. 320), but to our 
present root, and accordingly had originally the meaning of ‘ drink- 
offering ;’ this view is especially supported by d-hdv-d-s ‘ bucket,’ 

‘horse-trough,’ and by the Zd. zao-thra (f.), cp. xv-rpa ‘holy water.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 243 


fh 


Greek 7 corresponds to Indo-Germanic ¢. It is represented 
in Sanskrit by ¢, or th, in Zend by the same letters, in Latin 
by t, in Gothic by th (OHG. d), in the middle of a word some- 
times by d (OHG. t), in Church-Slavonie and Lithuanian by 
t, in Old Irish by ¢, and between vowels by th and d. 


204. av7-i over against, instead of, dvr-a, dvtn-v, dvti- 
kpv, Att. dvtikpu-s against, over against, right on, 
avtto-s, €v-avtio-s contrary to, dvT-0-pal, avTd-o, 
avTid-@ meet. 

Skt. dnti over against, before, considering, anti-kd-s 
near, anti-kd-m going on before one, anti-dévd-s 
opponent. 

Lat. ante, ant-erior, ant-iquo-s, ant-iae (‘capilli de- 
missi in frontem’ Paul. Ep. 17). 


Goth. and along, against, anda-vaur-d answer (Germ. ‘ 


Antwort), anda-nahti the night before, the eve, 
OHG. andi brow. 

Lith. dnt (with gen.) to, at. 

OGall. étan brow. 


Bopp ‘Comp. Gr.’ ii. 488, P.W., Pott i’. 259, where, however, there 
is @ very capricious conjecture as to the origin, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
325. — ‘ Inscr. Delph.’ No. 8, 1. 3 in Wescher and Foucart is important 
for the meaning of dvti : ‘ dyrl rod xetporexviov 76 mpooKdnoy iordtw,’ where 
the old physical primary meaning which is in general only preserved 
in compounds can be clearly seen (cp. Hesiod.”Epy. 727, Xenoph. ‘ Anab.’ 
iv. 7,6).— On the meaning of the Lith. ant see Schleicher ‘Lit.Gramm.’ 
p. 285 f.— The Lat. ante-d is preserved in antid-ed and is to be re- 
garded as an ablative, while dvri and dnti are locative in form, dyra 
instrumental. Cp. No. 330. It is hard to trace the connexion between 
this stem and the Skt. dnta-s ‘end’ (but also ‘neighbourhood ’= 
the Goth. andei-s), which in Sanskrit is closely connected with it. 
The Lat. antes ‘rows’ must also be considered here. 


205. doriHp (st. dorep) star, dorep-d-els starry, dorp-o-v 
constellation. 
Skt. (Ved.) instr. pl. st/-bhis with stars, tara (for 
stara) star. — Zd. ¢tare star. 
R 2 


244, BOOK II. 


Lat. stel-la (for ster-ula), astru-m (perhaps borrowed). 

Goth. statr-né (f.), OHG. stérro (m.) star. 

Arem. ster stella, pl. steret, Corn. steyr stellae (Z?. 
122). 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ s.v. tara, Pott ii’. 167.— Probably we ought to put 
with these répas and the dra€ cipnpévoy ‘ reipea’ (2 485 ev dé ra reipea 
mavra Ta T ovpavds eotepaverat) while dotpdm-r-w, orép-op ‘shining,’ 
arep-on-7 may be reckoned derivative forms. Benf. i. 662 f.— The 
oft-quoted Zd. agtar is not to be found in Justi, and seems accordingly 
to have no authority, so that an initial ais only to be found in Gk. — 
As to the root varying opinions have been held. According to one 
view it is preserved in the Skt. as ‘throw,’ in which case dornp would 
answer to the Skt. dstar ‘shooter’ (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 540), in support 
of which Benf. mentions the Germ. Strahl (both ‘arrow’ and ‘flash 
of lightning’), according to the other (Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 4) the 
words come from the rt. star (No. 227), in which case the stars would 
have been so-called from being ‘ strewn over the vault of heaven.’ The 
fact that in the Vedas only the plural from the stem star occurs speaks 
for the second view. Max Miller 11. 365 also derives star-as from the 
rt. star, but in the active sense as ‘the strewers of light.’ This seems 
to me bold, since we do not find the rt. star used specially of light. — 
Pictet ii. 209 connects only do-rjp with the rt. as, and the words 
beginning with a consonant with the rt. star. — As prothetic vowels 
are so common in Gk. this seems to me unsafe, and I regard Kuhn’s 
second view as the most probable one. 


206. dorv (for Fdéorv) city, acreto-s urbane, aord-s towns- 
man, citizen. 

Skt. vdstu place, the ground of the home, house, 
vastavjd-s settled, inhabitant, rt. vas.—Zd. vanh 
stay, dwell. 

OHG. wis-t mansio, Goth. vis-an manere. 

Olr. foss a remaining, resting, 7-fuss, at home; 
ar-a-ossa (for ar-a-fossa) quae manet (Z’. 434, 
Goid’. p. 26). 

Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 132, while Benf. i. 297 compares the Skt. vdstu 
‘locus,’ Bopp ‘Gl.’ s.v. vas, Pott W. ii. 2, 475.— On the OHG. wist 
cp. Grimm ‘D. Gr.’ ii. 923.— The F of dorv ig discussed by Ahr. 
‘ Aeol.’ 170, ‘Knés’ 58. a is here, as often elsewhere, the representative 
of long a. — Pott has ingeniously associated with this same rt. vas ‘ to 
dwell’ the words oi’ xcopy (Hesych.) i.e. vas-ja, and oid-ry-s* Kopnrns 
(Hesych.)—cp. also Ova, Oi, "On—and tzep-do-v ‘upper-storey. But 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 245 


doubts still remain, especially on account of the Lacon. 8d ‘tribus.’ 
The same scholar explains the Lat. ver-na which like oikérns had 
originally the meaning ‘ house-companion’ (Preller ‘ Rém. Myth.’ 248), 
to be for vesi-gena ‘ born in the house,’ in which case we might assume 
a Lat. subs.=Skt. vasa-s ‘dwelling. But perhaps itis better to derive 
the word straight from the rt. vas. — Roth. ‘Ztschr.’ ix. 220 puts 
éo-ria, as I did formerly, not under the rt. vas ‘shine’ (No. 610), but 
under our present root, so too ¢d-vn for *vas-nd. Fick ‘ Bezzenb. 
Beitr.’ i. 61 gives a different explanation of vv. 


207. drra father! — Skt. atta mother, older sister. — 
Lat. atta father! — Goth. atta (st. attan) father. 
— ChSl. ott-ct father. — Oly. ate, aite foster- 
father. 


Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 271, Kuhn ‘ Web. Ind. Stud.’ 1. 325, Pictet 1.347. — 
A very old epithet of endearment used to one’s elders, of which the 
Skt. has only the fem. — Paul.‘ Epit.’ 12 ‘attam pro reverentia seni cul- 
libet dicimus, quasi eum avi nomine appellemus,’ and therefore certainly 
not a borrowed word. — The Goth. aither ‘mother’ with the regular 
change of letters must also be of the same origin. — Cp. No. 243. 


208. ér-ed-s true, érd-¢m examine.— Skt. sat-jd-s true, 
right, sat-jd-m truth, Zd. haithya truly. —OS. AS. 
sdth (=san-th-s) sooth, ON. sann-r true. 


Bopp ‘GL. Pott W. ii. 2, 243, Benf. i, 25.— The root is éo ‘to be’ 
(No. 564). The meaning ‘true,’ ‘real’ appears already in the Skt. 
participle sat, the shorter form for sant=(a)sant (Lat. prae-sent), and 
Clemm. ‘Stud.’ iii. 328 refers the Lat. son-s (st. sont) ‘he that has been 
it’ to the same origin, also the derivative sont-icw-s, a view which 
receives striking confirmation from Bugge’s account of the use of the 
Old Norse sann-r (‘ Stud.’ iv. 205). sat-jd-s is derived from the same 
sat ; the Gk. ér-ed-s has lost the spir. asp. The synonymous words 
éru-po-s, er-ntu-po-s are referred by Benf. to the Skt. form sat-tvd-m, 
which as a subst. has the meaning “being,” ‘creature,’ ‘animal.’ — 
Kern’s assertion (‘Ztschr,’ viii. 400) that ¢reds shows traces of an 
initial F has no foundation whatever. Pott ii’. 820 holds therefore 
rightly to the old explanation, as does Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 345. On 
the «= cp. p. 609. —I see no sufficient reason in the Cyprian proper 
name "Erefdvdpo (Siegismund ‘Stud.’ ix. 102), of which the third 
syllable is actually doubtful, to abandon this comparison. 


209. érz moreover, further, still, wpocér: over and above. 
— Skt. dti, Zd. ait? excessively, ultra. — Lat. et, 


246 BOOK II. 


208 et-iam, at in at-avu-s. — OIr. aith-, ath- (for ati) 
re-, iterum, ad-ro-gegon-sa repupugi (Z?. 869). 
Pott i%. 251, Bopp ‘Gl.’ —aéz is used in compounds in exactly the 
same way as in at-avu-s e.g. atj-ahna-s ‘lasting over a day’ (‘longer 
than a day’). The Lat. e¢ might also correspond to the related Skt. 
Gtha ‘ further,’ ‘ then,’ but the supposition in the text is rendered prefer- 
able by the Gk. ér. Pott calls special attention to the almost identical 
use of ati, éri, and e¢-iam with comparatives: ers padXov, etiam melius. 
Kissling’s assertion (‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 214) that an original aé must 
have become in Gk. éov and then even «i, is completely unfounded, as 
we can see from mpo-ri (ro-ri), hd-ri-s, pij-ti-s, 5@-T1-s, da-ri-vy. — Even. 
the latest edition of Passow’s Dictionary repeats the singularly in- 
genious remark ‘the word seems to be the primary form of the 
3rd sing. of «iui, and so properly est.’ 


210. eros (Féros) year, erjovo-s (from Fereo-r10-s?) yearly, 
érnaiat yearly winds, 7ires (onres) this year, «ds 
véwt-a a year hence, duvc-ernpia a bad year. 

Skt. vatsd-s, vatsard-s year. 
Lat. vetus, vetus-tu-s, vetulu-s. 
ChSl. vettich-% old. 


Bopp ‘Gl. s. v. vatsara, Pott i. 108, Benf. 1. 311, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ii. 133, Miklosich ‘ Radd.’ p. 8 (ChSI. ch regularly from s).— The F is 
established by féria, on Boeotian inscriptions (C. I. 1569, 1575) 
(Clemm ‘Stud.’ ix. 435 f.), and its effects may be recognized in the 
Lacedemonian S:aBérns, yérop (Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 46, 54), and in deréa, ra 7 
ait® rev yevvopeva, avery’ tov avtroern, verns* 6 avroerns( Hesych. ed. 
Schmidt p. 57), and in the Homeric oieréas ‘of the same age,’ and 
even in tpraxovrovrys. All the latter words are compounded with 
the copulative prefix a, 6 (Lob. ‘ Elem.’ i. 362). — Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 329 
concludes there must have been an old subst. vetus ‘year’ as the 
origin of vetus-tu-s (cp. robustus, venustus) and agrees in so doing 
with Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 10, who refers Veturius as well to the same 
source. — The stem then is vatas, whence came the Skt. vatsd-s (for 
vatas-a-s) with added a; a shorter form is found in sam-vat ‘year,’ a 
word, however, which is taken in the P.W. as an abbreviation of 
sam-vatsard. From this comes véwra, probably for veo-F(e)r-a. Cp. 
mepvot No. 360. 


211. ir-ado-s (Firadé-s). —Skt. vatsd-s calf, child, vat- 
sakd-s little calf, vatsatard-s weaned young, young 
bull. — Lat. vitulu-s, vitula, Ose. Viteliu (Italia). 

iradcs (perhaps for Fer-ca-do-s) in Hesych. with the meaning ravpos, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 247 


which is assumed also by Varro ‘R. R. ii. 5 who follows Timaeus in 
deriving thence the name J/talia (cp. Gell. xi.1, 1). This etymology 
is splendidly confirmed by Viteli% in the inscription on Oscan coins 
(Mommsen ‘ Unterital. Dialekte’ 260). — Bopp ‘ GI.,’ Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 
133. — Ebel iv. 329 compares the Skt. vatsd-s ‘ year’ in which case 
the word would mean ‘ that which is of this year.’ — So Bopp ‘ iib. das 
Albanesische’ p. 3. In this language the calf is called Biré., the year | 
Birre or Byer. Stier ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 297, — Fick 1°. 765 gives a similar 209 
explanation also to the Goth. with-ru-s ‘year-old lamb’ (whence the 
Germ. Widder ‘ram’ [Eng. wether]). So too the Ir. gamuin ‘ year- 
old calf,’ from gam ‘summer’ (Corm. Tr. p. 85). Cp. No. 195. 
212. werd with, among, after, wéra¢e afterwards, pérac- 
oat lambs of middling age, peragv between. 

Skt. (Ved.) mzthds alternately, with each other, turn 
about, mithu false, upside down, mithu-nd-s paired, 
connected, Zend mat with. 

Goth. mith ava pécov, pera, ctv, missd with each 
other, missa-déds misdeed, OHG. miti (Germ. mit) 
with. 

Olr. mt- dva-, mé-gnethi male facta, messa pejor. 

Bopp ‘Comp. Gr.’ i. 510, Benf. ‘Lex. z. Samavéda’ s.v. sma, 
Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 515, Ebel iv. 142, where mat? is assumed to be the 
primary form for the Teutonic languages, ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 176, Bacmeister 
‘Kelt. Br.’ 85. — Pott i?. 755, more clearly ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 101, assumes 
aphaeresis of an a, so that the Skt. amd ‘together’ would then be the 
source. Benfey’s conjecture is more plausible; it is that the Zd. mat 
arose from the similarly used Skt. smat (with the instrumental ‘ with’ 
Delbriick ‘ Abl. Loc. Instr.’ 68) and that pera too is to be referred to 
the stem sama (No. 449) not unlike the OHG. samant, samat, the 
Germ. sammt (together with) (Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 139). péracoa 
(cp. émiooar) must be for pera-xi-at, and peragd must either be a com- 
pound with vy, or like peo-ny-v from the rt. dy (ep. a&o-s). The Skt. 
2 is weakened from a. era in form is instrumental, mithd-s genitival 
and ablatival. 

218. éaréo-v bone, daréivo-s, darivo-s of bone, bony. —Skt. 
astht, asthdn, Zd. acti, acta bone. — Lat. os (OLat. 
OSsu, OSSU-M), OSS-eU-S. 

Bopp ‘GI., Pott W. i. 329, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iti, 325. — The Lat. 0s 
stands for osse st. osst, from ostz, like mes-si-s from mes-ti-s, met-tt-s. 
On the other forms see Priscian vi. p. 254 H.— In Greek itself the 
following words are related: do-rako-s and do-raxo-s ‘ sea-crab,’ 


248 BOOK It. 


da-Tpeo-v, datp-elo-v ‘oyster, do-tpa-ko-v ‘ potsherd, ‘shell’ (of crabs, 
muscles, and eggs), perhaps do-rpd-yado-s ‘ankle,’ ‘vertebra,’ ‘die,’ 
with the by-forms do-rpi-s (whence dotpifeww=dorpayadifew ‘to play 
with dice’), and dorpi-xo-s. All these are names of hard substances, 
and that this is the proper meaning of dcréov is shown by the fact 
that the same word has in the three languages the two meanings 
‘bone’ and ‘kernel’ or ‘stone of fruit.’ This gives ground for 
Pictet’s conjecture (i. 515), that the rt. as ‘throw’ contains the 
etymon, so that bones and fruit-stones were so called from being 
‘what is thrown away,’ ‘rubbish.’ But cp. Fick i*. 503. —TIf this 
view is adopted we must assume a form as-ta-m, preserved in the Lat. 
ossu-m, as the primary one, and a by-form as-t2 whence were derived 
éa-réo-v (as it were ossewm), probably for éc-re-jo-y, and by dimin. 
suffix dora-po-y (Schwabe ‘de Deminut.’ p. 32, 69), whence déerapio-v 
‘little knucklebone’ on the one side, and on the other dorpeor, 
dotpakov, the latter with a fresh diminutival suffix. do-rpi-s with the 
a preserved would stand for do-rtap-i-s. In do-rpd-ya-do-s (cp. the 
Germ. Anéchel) the y seems to have been weakened from x, so that we 

210 should here have a diminutive form of the character of the Lat. 
cornt-cu-lu-m, such as we see, though Schwabe (p. 58) sought one in 
vain, in 6fpi-ka-ho-v=6Ppiov Aesch. ‘Ag.’ 135. Cp. ‘Stud.’ i. 259. 
The words for dice suggest a direct derivation from the rt. as ‘throw,’ 
which Pott i’. 519 conjectures for the Lat. d-le-a (for as-le-a; cp. the 
Skt. prasaka-s i.e. pra-as-a-ka-s ‘ die’), but the other meanings make 
it safer to connect them with the words for ‘bone.’ Otherwise Pauli 
‘ Korpertheile’ 24. — Perhaps the Corn. asen ‘costa’ (Z?, 1066) belongs 
here (cp. Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ p. 149). 


214. Root met rér-o-pae fly (€-7-6-pny, €-ard-pny, €-177- 
v), @ku-Tét-y-s Swift, mord-o-pwar flutter, mre-pd-v 
wing, mrépv€ wing, fin, flap, mr-iAo-v feather (?). 
—i-mr-w (Dor. aor. €-mer-o-v), mit-vé-o fall, r7G- 
pa, wr@-o1-s a fall, ror-po-s lot, rra-i-ev stumble 
against, fall. 

Skt. pat (pdt-d-mt) fly, settle down, fall, light upon, 
fall in with, pdt-a-tra-m, pdttra-m, pattr-in bird, 
pdt-man flight, pat-a-s flight, fall. 

Lat. peto, im-pet-u-s, pen-na (Old Lat. pes-na), prae- 
pe(t)-s, acci-pit-er. 

OHG. fédara, fédah (fétah) wing.— Goth. finth-a 
ytyvécko, OHG. find-u find. 

ChSL pit-a bird, piit-ica passer, pe-ro feather. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 249 


OCymr. rt. (p)at, (p)et, at-ar volucres (Z?. 828), 
ad-anet pennae (Z?. 291); etn avis, Olr. én (Z?. 
776); rt. (p)ent, né étar non invenitur, ¢t-éit (for 
do-éit) adit, venit, tu-it cadit (Z?. 503). 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. iv. 136, 158, 164, Benf. ii. 93, Fick i°. 658, Ebel 
‘Beitr.’ 11. 35, Windisch ibid. viii. 3, Stokes ibid. 325. — The rt. pat, 
pet is clear. The primary meaning (cp. Introduction p. 106) we may 
assume to have been that of ‘ quick movement’ which has been main- 
tained in the widest sense in the Lat. petere, while in the Skt. and 
Gk. it has branched off into the two meanings ‘fly’ and ‘fall ’"—both 
denoting a movement through the air. However Skt. compounds 
like wtpat ‘fly up,’ ‘spring up,’ prapat ‘hurry along,’ ‘ dash,’ and also 
the Gk. sporerns, edmerns have meanings more like petere, while on the 
other hand the Lat. penna (for pet-na), praepetes (aves Fest. p. 205, 
244) and accipiter (cp. No. 2), which Pott ii. 54, W. 1. 523, rightly 
compares to the Gk. akuzérns, with its by-form acceptor (Charis. 
p- 98 K) are akin in their meanings to the words for ‘flying.’ The 
poetic adj. Su-mer-ns (side by side with du-mér-ns) is also important for 
the special developement of the meaning of this root; Homer uses it 
as an epithet of rivers, but it afterwards acquired a much more 
general use. éyeceiv in passages like 0 624 corresponds quite to the 
Lat. tmpetum facere. Something may be learnt from the gloss sus- 
pito ‘salto’ (Loewe ‘ Prodr.’ 366) as to the Lat. peto.— The Germ. 
Jinden (find) finds in its special meaning of ‘ hitting,’ ‘lighting upon’ 
something, a clear analogy in the Oly. étar and in the uses of the 
Skt. pat that are given in the P.W. under head 7. The Lat. znvenire 
is to be compared, so too «ciomimrew applied as it is e.g. by Xen. 
‘Cyneg.’ 3, 5 tdaxrotot rept ta tyvy, Ore elomimrovow eis avira, — Cp. 
No. 349. 

215. Stem mera mera-vyvu-p, wit-vyn-pe spread out, wéra- 
o-pa curtain, covering, wéra-co-s broad-brimmed 
hat, wéra-Ao-v leaf, plate (of metal), mwéra-Ao-s 
spread out, rar-dvn dish. 

Lat. pat-e-o, pat-ulu-s, Patulciu-s, patina. 

OHG. fad-am filum, OS. fath-m the outstretched 
arm, embrace, (fathom). 

OCyumr. etem filum. 

Pott W. iv. 154, Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 3, Benf. i. 544, where much 
foreign matter is introduced, ii. 98, where werdvyve is classed with 
mdarv-s=Skt. prthi-s and rt. parth, prath ‘extendi’ (No. 367 b). 
Leo Meyer ‘ Bemerk.’ 21 repeats the latter comparison, and suggests 


211 


250 BOOK II. 


wort by the side of mpori as an analogy. But the r of the Skt. words 
appears in mAarvs as J, and the words here compared are found in 
three families of speech with no liquid after the labial, and therefore 
we prefer to treat them as separate. — patina is perhaps borrowed. — 
That éradov belongs here and not as Bopp holds to the Skt. pdttram 
(‘ wing,’ ‘leaf,’ No. 214) is proved by the meaning and the adj. méra-Ao-s 
which is identical with patu-lu-s (cp. dévdpea byurérnda).—It is probable 
that we might also place here mre-dea ‘elm’ which Fick compares with 
the Lat. tilia (‘Or. u. Oce.’ ii. 118).— May we not suppose that the 
Zd. pathana, ‘wide,’ ‘broad’ belongs here? Cp. Fick i°. 659, where 
pandere (for *pant-dere) is also connected. 


216. Root cra é€-cry-v I placed myself, i-ocrn-p place, 
ord-ol-s position, standing, sedition, ora-piy an 
upright, side-beam (of a ship), ora-pvo-s jar, 
i-o7d-¢ weaver’s beam, or7-yov the warp, ora- 
THp a Weight. 

Skt. stha (t¢-shtha-mi, Zend hi-ctd-mi) stand, stha- 
na-m position, condition, sthé-ti-s status, sthd-la-m 
place, sthd-vi-s weaver. 

Lat. rt. sta st-0, st-st-o, sta-ti-m, sta-ti-o, Std-tor, sta- 
tu-s, sta-tu-o, sta-tu-a, std-men warp, sta-bu-lu-m, 
sta-bi-li-s. 

OHG. std-m, Goth. stan-da stand, stath-s place, 
OHG. stat (Germ. Stdtte), place, Goth. stél-s (Hing. 
stool) chair, throne. 

ChSl. sta-ti stand, Lith. sté-t¢ (in compounds) stand, 
sta-tu-s standing, steep, staty-tz to place, std-kle-s 
loom, ChSl. sto-l% thronus, sella. 

Olr. rt. std tdu, té6 sum; redupl. sista, sessam a 
standing, tair-(s)issim I stand, endure. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. i. 312-372, Benf. i. 628, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 115, 
Corssen i*. 414, Windisch ‘ Beitr. z. Gesch. d. d. Spr.’ iv. 256, Zimmer 
‘Ztschr.’ xxiv. 202. — The rt. sta, of which the ¢ is aspirated only in 
the Skt. form, is the basis of a large number of secondary forms, 
especially of the stems ora@ (ota-6-yd-s, ora-6-yn, ota-0-epds, oT7-8-os, 
d-ota-Ons), orad, ore, oraf, and orep, and, with a dulling of vowel, of 
atv, orm, and crud. — It is especially noticeable that the root is applied 
to weaving similarly in the Gk. tord-s, ornuer, the Lat. stamen, and 

212 the Skt. sthd-vi-s (Pictet ii. 173); with ordapvo-s, on the other hand, 
may be compared the MHG, stande of like meaning. — ordAn’ tapetov 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 251 


kmvav (Hesych.) answers to the Skt. sthéla-m and the OHG. stal, 
(statio). The same meaning is found in the ChSl. sta-7a. Corssen 
‘Beitr.’ 463, i7. 810 gives valid reasons for not connecting stlocu-s, the 
older form of locus with this root. — Pott (so too Fick i*. 819) analyses 
dvatnvos as dvo-crnvo-s, and sees in oryvo a noun meaning ‘ standing,’ 
* condition.’ — On o€-vos cp. p. 503. — From the rt. sta is formed the 
Skt. sthd-vard-s ‘firm’ = Zd. ctawra ‘ strong *; 1t may, however, also 
be compared to the Gk. crav-pd-s ‘ stake’ and to a Lat. stau-ru-s which 
we may deduce from in-staurare, re-staurare. The Goth. stiur-jan 
‘make firm’ comes from the same source, while the Lat. sti-va 
‘ plough-tail’ shows the suffix va only. — That also oré-ap (st. oreapr 
for ore-f-ap-r) ‘standing fat,’ ‘tallow,’ and orais ‘dough,’ came from 
the rt. cra seems very probable (cp. Benf. i. 638, Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ 
v. 369). — The Lat. sta-ti-m: sta-tio :: alico : locus. 
217. Root ctaFf, cteF. 
This root is now discussed under Nos. 228 and 216. 

218. Root ctad, cteA oréAA-@ (€-07dAn-v) set, appoint, 
despatch, o7é6A0-s expedition, o7déd-1€ prop, rack, 
areA-€6-v, oTeAed (ep. o7eA€1y4) handle (of an axe 
etc.), 7éA-exos the stock of a tree, o77#A-7n column. 

Lat. stul-tu-s, stol-i-du-s (¢). 
OHG. stil handle, shaft (Germ. Stiel), stellan place 
(Germ. stellen), stildi still, soft. | 
OPr. stalle he stands, Lith. stelliiti arrange, order. 
Cp. No. 216. — We find in Skt. the rt. sthal ‘stare’ (P. W.), but it 
is not supported by instances. Pott W. i. 362, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 322. — 
Abr. ‘ Aeol.’ 41 mentions ozed as the Aeol. root for oré\a = aroAn, Kao- 
mohéw (= karaoreAS), and hence he separates oreA with the meaning 
‘clothe’ from this root. We are met here by many unsolved diffi- 
culties; we cannot even be certain with regard to some of the words 
given above whether the J belongs to the root or to the formative 
suffix.— The Aeol. orddva (Conze ‘ Reise auf Lesbos’ Hannov. 1865 
p. 35, A 24, B 17, xix. 2 orjAdn) proves that orjAn belongs here, and 
not directly to the rt. ora, Perhaps ordd-Aa stands for orad-va, and is 
to be compared with the Skt. sthu-nd (Zd. ctdna) ‘ door-post,’ ‘pillar,’ 
the n of which seems to point to a lost r and so to a form star-nd. Cp. 
No. 228. — oradidas* kdépaxas xdpaxas (Hesych.) suggests the MHG. stelze 
(Germ. Stelze) ‘stilt,’ ‘ prop.’ — oréd-exos is formed like tép-axos, aig-xos 
(st. aid). — On stolidu-s and studtu-s cp. Corssen ii’. 156. 

219. Root cre, cteuB oréud-vdo-v pressed olives or 

grapes, d-oreup-7s immoveable, unpressed, créuB- 


252 BOOK II. 


» shake, misuse, oreuB-d¢-@ (Hesych.), oroB- 
é-w, oToB-d¢- scold, revile. 
Skt. stambh (stémbh-é, stabh-no-mi, stabh-na-mi) set 
firm, support, stem, stambh-a-s door-post, check. 
OHG. stamph pilum, stamphén to stamp, pound. 
Lith. stéba-s pillar (?). 
Bopp ‘ Gl.’, Pott W. i. 362 f. — ¢ and B interchange of old in this root 
013 (cp. below p. 528), oréuBew denoted 7d xweiv ovvexas and occurs in 
this sense in Aeschylus (Aesch. fr. 433 Herm.). Lobeck ‘ Rhemat.’ 
33 f. discusses these words and others of a similar sound. — The 
notions of ‘ propping’ and ‘ stamping’ are united in this root as they 
are in épeidw. —I do not see how to connect with this root orapvAy 
‘bunch of grapes’ (crapvrn ‘ plummet,’ ‘ peg’), cradis, doradis ‘raisin,’ 
at all events it is not likely that cragvAj, as Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ 1. 
140 conjectures, originally meant ‘vine. —Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ 
i. 128 brings forward the Skt. stébhi-s ‘twig,’ ‘bunch of grapes,’ 
(P. W. ‘ panicle,’ ‘ tuft.’) — Here too, no doubt, we must put the Olr. 
tamon truncus = OHG. stam, pl. stammd for stabhna, and not from 
a root-form stam (‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 432, Zimmer xxiv. 204). 
220. Root ctev orév-w, oTevdyx-o groan, sigh, crovo-s sigh, 
ayd-orovo-s loud-roaring, 27év-Twp. 
Skt. stan (stdén-d-m2) thunder, bellow, roar, standj-a-tt 
it thunders, ni-sthana-ti he groans. 
ON. stynja, styn ingemisco, OHG. stundédd suspirium, 
AS. stun strepitus. 
Lith. sten-é-ti, ChSl. sten-a-ti groan. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. ii. 2,147. Fick i°. 824, who also connects 
No. 226, Zimmer ‘ Suffix a’ 127. That ocrevd-s ‘narrow,’ creivew ‘make 
narrow, are related seems to me now untenable. These words may 
have come from the rt. séa in the sense of ‘ stuff,’ ‘ stow.’ 

221. Root crep o7ép-o-wac am deprived of, orep-é-a, 
oTep-i-ok-@ deprive. 
Goth. stil-a steal. 

Pott W. ii. 1, 710. — The Skt. sténd-s ‘thief,’ steja-m ‘theft,’ are 
formed from the shorter rt. str, which Pictet ii. 439 regards as a 
weaker by-form of star. tyrd-o-wa ‘want,’ ‘lack’ (Pott 1%. 558, 
Benf. i. 660) can hardly be compared, as the meaning does not come 
near enough. For combinations regarding it see Fick 1°.587. oréd\do 
itself has in certain connexions the notion of ‘secrecy’ and ‘stealth,’ 
which occurs in the Teutonic words of our present root. Cp. accord- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 253 


ingly No. 218.—Diefenbach ‘ Vg]. Worterb.’ i. 331 has collected the rest 
of the Teutonic words 
222. orep-e6-s, oTEppd-s, oTép-l-go-s stiff, firm, hard, ore- 
pion, oreipa barren, orjp-vyé prop, ornpif-o I 
prop. 
Skt. sthir-d-s hard, firm, star-7 vacca sterilis, strength. 
Lat. ster-ili-s. 
MHG. star rigidus, Goth. statré oreipa. 
Lith. styr-u am stiff, numb, ChSl. star-% old (?). 

Pott W. i. 366. — oreped-s and oreppd-s point to crepjo-s (cp. Bopéas, 
Boppas), so too oreipa points to orep-ja. The acc. oreipay corresponds 
completely to starjam the Vedic acc. to start (Kuhn ‘zur Altest. 
Gesch.’ p. 8.)— We might also connect ortipag (cp. ordp6n, ordpOvy&) 
‘shaft,’ comparing oreipa ‘ keel-beam,’ however, with the MHG. stzwre 
‘rudder’ (Germ. Stewer), while stiwre ‘prop’ suggests otjp-ty€. We 
can hardly separate orpnyns ‘hard,’ ‘rough,’ ‘sharp,’ and the Lat. 
strénwu-s. — The b of the OHG. stir-b-u ‘die’ (Germ. sterben) might 
be compared with the ¢ of orép-i-fo-s ; at all events ‘to die’ is pro- 
perly ‘to become stiff and chill.’ Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 411, is of the 214 
same opinion, only he connects the Teutonic word immediately with 
torp-eo. — The notions ‘ stiff,’ ‘firm,’ ‘strong,’ meet here in many in- 
stances. Cp. No. 216. 

223. aorép-vo-y breast, flat surface. —OHG. stirna brow 
(Germ. Stirn). 

Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 4.— The primary meaning ‘flat surface’ is 
clearly to be seen in the rt. crop No. 227, the form corresponds exactly 
to the Skt. perf. pass. part. (n.) stirnd-m, ‘that which is spread out.’ — 
Fick i°. 825 adds the Skt. strana ‘ region,’ ‘side.’ — The same stem is 
contained also in Cymr. ystarn ‘ ephippium.’ 

224. Root cteg (for orem) orép-@ I crown, oréu-pa, or ég-os, 
otéh-avo-s garland, oreg-dvy circlet, border. 
Skt. sthd-p-ajd-mi (causative of stha) place, make 
fast. 
Lat. sttp-a-re, sttpatores, stipulart, stap-ia stirrup. 
OHG. stif-t, MHG. stafe, stapfe staff, OHG. stifulén 
fulcire, MHG. under-stivel fulcrum. 

Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ i. 140, Pott W. i. 369.— The primary meaning of 
arép-o is muxdg¢w ‘make thick,’ ‘ firm,’ ‘full,’ hence the Homeric éneoré- 
syavro moroio (A 470), éemoreprs (Archil. fr. 9 Bergk. tans dypins emorte- 
gns), both with gen. of material [cp. orehdvors muxagGcis Eur. ‘ Alc.’ 746, 


254 BOOK II. 


and Theocr. ii. 153]. Allied to this is the Lat. stipare, while the 
stipatores ‘qui circumdant corpora regum’ (Fest. p. 314) approach 
more nearly to the usual meaning ‘ crown,’ ‘encircle.’ orid-os ‘ heap,’ 
‘troop,’ otup-pd-s ‘ thick,’ ‘close,’ which are commonly connected with 
orei(Bw, start from the notion ‘closely-packed,’ ‘ pressed together.’ 
Fick i°. 822 compares the Lith. st¢pra-s, stipru-s, ‘strong. On the 2 
of several forms see Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 413.— The several uses of 
orep-dvy (‘battlement,’ ‘railing, ‘border,’) point to a protecting, 
strengthening ‘encircling and surrounding.’ — stzpulari presupposes” 
an adj. sttipulu-s ‘firmus’ (cp. Gessn. ‘ Thesaur.’), whence it arrived at 
the meaning ‘to fix firmly to each other.’ From this point of view it 
becomes easy to understand the connexion with stip-ula ‘stalk,’ 
stip-e-s ‘stem,’ etc. Pictet 11. 425 follows the old theory in connect- 
ing stipulari directly with stipula, reminding us of the German custom 
of the Halmwurf and of the use of the festuca in manumission, 
and contracts. — On ¢ for p cp. No. 251 and p. 510 ff.—Cp. Joh. 
Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ 1. 154, Corssen 1’. 505. 


225. ori-a stone, pebble, dim. orio-v, orié¢-@ pelt with 
stones, oriddns stony. — Goth. stai-n-s stone, 
stain-ja-n to stone. | 

Pott W. i. 329, Benf. i. 661, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 34, where he com- 
pares wid as well.— Pott i”. 424 brings ordyvé ‘ point’ under this 
head. Perhaps we may find in it the primary notion of this word 
of mysterious origin. — Miklosich ‘ Lex.’ 900 compares the Ch8l. st-na 
TELXOS, Kpnuvos. 

226. Root ctir cri-¢w prick, oriy-ya, orvy-py prick, point, 
mark, spot, oT.K-70-s spotted. 

Skt. tig (teg-G-mi) to be sharp, to sharpen, tig-md-s 
sharp, violent, tk-ta-s bitter, téga-s keenness, 
strength. — Zd. tigh-ra pointed, tigh-ri arrow. 

215 Lat. di-sting-u-o (dvacri¢w), in-stine-tu-s, in-stig-a-re, 
sti-mulu-s, sti-lu-s. 

Goth. (us-) sttgg-an prick out, put out, OHG. sting-u, 
stihh-u prick, stick (Germ. stechen), Goth. stik-s 
oTtypy, stak-s oriypa, OHG. stacchilla sting, point, 
stihhil graving tool, stilus. 

OCymr. tigom naevi. 


Pott W. iii. 465 cp. 342, Benf. i. 647, Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 252. — 
Skt. t2g for stig (cp. Nos. 222 and 205). — Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 6. — The 
developement of the meanings in Sanskrit resembles closely that in 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 255 


the case of the rt. ak (No. 2). So tigmd-s can be translated by dcer, 
tegas by dxpn. In its meaning tikta-s corresponds to mx-pd-s (No. 100). 
The name of the river Zigri-s also belongs to the Persian words (Pott 
‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 257). — Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 513 discusses ste(g)mu-lu-s. 
sti-lu-s (for stig-lu-s) is certainly not a borrowed word, it is identical 
with the OHG. stihhil. — Some of the Teutonic forms come from a root 
with a of similar meaning, stag. Cp. Grimm. ‘ D. Gr.’ 11. 37, No, 418. — 
The rt. Ory Ovyydva (No. 145), which has been more than once com- 
pared with this root, has nothing whatever to do with it. stinguo 
‘extinguish ’ finds an analogy in the Germ. ersticken ‘stifle,’ ‘ smother,’ 
which I cannot see how to connect with our present root. Fick 
1°. 823. 


226b. o7é-pa mouth, jaws, ord-pa-xo-s gullet, stomach, 
oTop-vr0o-s talkative. — Zd. ctaman (m.) mouth. 


Fick i°. 824, Pott W. 1. 371.— The Aeol. orv-pa is of as little im- 
portance for the discovery of the etymon as évupa, or rvrapos for that 
of dvona and mérayos. The Skt. stu ‘laudare,’ ‘celebrare,’ is certainly 
not the root. Fick seeks to find the root in stan ‘resound,’ but there 
is nothing of the kind to be traced in the use of ordua but rather the 
ideayof ‘set gaping jaws, whence the word gets also the meaning ‘ bit’ 
(orduov), and cropody is ‘to sharpen, which points to the rt. stabh ‘to 
set stiff,’ ‘to astound.’ Cp. No. 233. 


227. Root ctop ordp-vv-pi, orop-é-vyv-pi, oTpd-vvu-p 
spread out, o7pa-ua carpet, orTpw-uvy couch, 
oTpa-Td-s an encamped army. 

Skt. star (str-nd-mi, str-nd-mi) strew, lay low, upa- 
star strew, spread out, star-i-mdn couch. — Zd. 
ctar strew, ctair-is couch. 

Lat. ster-n-o, strd-tu-s, strd-men, strd-mentu-m, toru-s. 

Goth. strau-ja orpévvupt, OHG. strdo, MHG. stré 
gen. strdw-es straw, betti-streuui lectisternium. 

ChSl. stré-ti extendere, po-stl-a-ti sternere, po-stel-ja 
oTpwpvy, Lith. stra-7é straw, horse-stall. 

Cymr. strat, ystrat planities, y-starn ephippium, rt. 
strau, OCymr. strouis stravi (Z?. 120). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 701, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 115, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 
li. 456 ff., iv. 4, where toru-s is discussed in its relation to stara-s 
(retained in sva-stara-s ‘one’s own straw’)—the connecting link is 
stor-ea ‘ coverlet,’ ‘mat’ ;—the oldest tort were like those prepared by 
Philemon and Baucis for the gods ‘de mollibus ulvis’ (Ov. ‘ Met.’ viii. 


256 BOOK II. 


216 655). — The Gk. orparé-s belongs, in spite of its a, to this root, and the 
more certainly that the Aeol. form orpéro-s occurs in inscriptions 
(Ahr. ‘Aeol.’ 75). From the Lat. we get also the related word séra- 
g-e-s; stru-e-re along with strue-s and strat-c-e-s suggest the ChSl. 
stro-i-ti, karaoxevdcewy, idvvev, and come, like the Goth. strawjan from a 
parallel rt. strw (Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 286), Akin to this in mean- 
ing is tép-a-pvo-y (for orep-a-pvo-v), only used in the plur. for ‘house,’ 
‘hall,’ ‘room ’—i. e. ‘structura,’ ‘ exstructio’—from the root with e 
which appears here as in ster-no. — Since J and r occur manifestly side 
by side in the Slavonic languages, it is probable that the Lat. la-tu-s 
too, old Lat. stld-tu-s ‘broad’ (Fest. p. 313) is to be referred to the 
same root with / for 7. This is also Corssen’s view ‘ Beitr.’ 462, 
where the derived st/dtdrius is discussed as well. At all events this 
ldtu-s is as certainly distinct from the partic. latus = rAnré-s as from 
marv-s with which it has been often compared. — Cp. dornp (No. 205) 
and orépvo-v (No. 223). — The Cymr. strat ‘ valley,’ ‘ plain,’ is reckoned 
by Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ u. 153 among borrowed words. 

228. Root ctv, o7t-w erect, o7d-Ao-s column, oro-& 
colonnade. ) 
Skt. sthii-rd-s, sthti-ld-s big, coarse, stupid, clumsy, 
sthi-na, Zd, ctiina door-post, pillar. — Zd. ctdi big. 
Lith. stuly-s stump of a tree (Ness.), stu-m% length 
of body. 


Cp. rt. ora (No. 216), orad (No. 218), Pott W. i. 360. — The meta- 
physical meaning of sthuld-s reminds us of the words stultu-s and 
stolidus given under No, 218.—oro-d stands for an original crowd 
(Lob, ‘El.’ i. 443) with -1d collective, and points to a primary oro-o-s 
for orof-o-s or oro-a for orof-a with the same meaning as oari-Ao-s 
from which oro-1d was formed in the same way as omod-id, veorr-id and 
av@pak-id. — By vowel intensification orv becomes orev, which is pre- 
served in the Homeric ored-ra:, 1. €. kata didvovay iorarat, dpiterat, ‘he 
stands or is fixed in a certain direction’ (cp. Lehrs. ‘ Arist.’? 98), 
‘makes provision or arrangement (Germ. ‘ Anstalt’) for something,’ 
— The attempt made by Diintzer ‘Ztschr.’ xiii. 22 and Leo Meyer 
xiv. 85, to connect this ored-ro closely with the Skt. stu (Zd. gtu) is a 
mistaken one, since stu always means ‘praise,’ and not ‘ promise,’ or 
simply ‘speak.’ I should be inclined to conjecture rather that stu started 
from the physical meaning ‘set up,’ ‘ raise.’ — No doubt the Goth. stiv- 
ati tropovn, Lith. stév-iu ‘stand’ with v before the vowel instead of z, 
belong to staw the correlative of this orev. Fick i°, 822 adds also the 
MHG. stéuwen, ‘stow,’ ‘bar,’ ete. 


229. orvmo-s stem, stump, o7v-77 tow. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS, 257 


Skt. stupd-s, stipd-s tuft (2). 
Lat. stupa, stipa tow, stup-e-o, stup-idu-s, sttpe(t)-s. 
The general notion is that of ‘firm,’ ‘hard.’— The change of the 
vowel and the similar origin of sézpes is rendered probable by the form 
stipa = stupa quoted by Fest. p. 351 ‘ qua amphorae firmari solent cum 
exstruuntur.’ Cp. rt. orep No. 224. Perhaps too orid-o ‘make firm,’ 
‘thick, together with ortwis, orvppa, otvpdrds, atupedds belong here. 
Lobeck ‘ Rhem.’ 297 compares also oro.87 ‘ stuffing,’ while ore/Bo (esp. 
¢ 92) comes near to the rt. oreugd No. 219. All these stems touch 
each other at many points (Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ 1. 129). [Is not stupa 
(better spelt stwppa) a loan-word? Cp. Ritschl, ‘ Opuse.’ ii. 524.] 
230. Root ta, tav, tev 7H tene, Td-vu-par stretch myself, 
teivm (€-7d-On-v), Ti-Taiv-w stretch, extend, 7d- 
oi-s a stretching, 70-vo-s strain, tension, tone, 
Tavu-, Tavad-s extended, long, d-rev-js tenaz, 
stiff, ré-rav-o-s stretching, convulsive tension, 
Tév-ov (st. TevovT) sinew, Ta.v-ia strip, band, fillet. 
Skt. tan (tan-d-mi) stretch oneself, stretch, strain, 


carry out (partic. ta-td-s), tdn-ti-s cord, rope, 


chord, tdéna-s thread, tone, tanw-s (extended ?), thin, 
tender, tdn-tu-s thread, string, tan-jui-s roaring, 
whistling (of the wind), tan-ja-tv-s noise, thunder. 
— Zd. tan stretch out, lead, tan-ya extended. 

Lat. ten-d-o, ten-e-o, ten-tu-s, tenti-o, ten-or, ten-u-7-s, 
ten-ax, ten-er, ten-us cord, snare, tendicula, adv. 
tenus, ton-a-re, toni-tru. — Umbr. an-ten-tu ava- 
TELVeT@, Us-ten-tu ostendito. 

Goth. than-ja extendo, OHG. dunni thin (Germ. 
diinn), dona tendicula, OHG. donar tonitru, AS. 
thun clangor, thunjan tonare. 

Lith. temp-7-w% stretch out, timpa sinew, temptyva 
bowstring.—ChSl. ttn-i-ki tenuis, ten-eto, ton-oto 
laqueus, tetiva chorda. 

Cymr. tant, Olr. té fides; Cymr. teneu, Olr. tana 
thin ; Olr. tan time. 

Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott W. i. 2, 60 and 89, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 403, Schleich. 
‘Ksl.’ 113, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 238, whose conjectures about the initial 
letter, however, I cannot share (cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 7), Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
vili. 326. — The root has started from the primary meaning stretch and 
developed in the main three special ideas which meet us in all lan- 

S 


217 


258 BOOK II. 


guages, namely, (1) ‘ thin,’—further developed to ‘tender ;’ (2) ‘that 
which is stretched out,’ hence ‘string,’ ‘ sinew,’ etc. (ep. OHG. fadam 
No. 215), (3) ‘tension,’ ‘ tone,’ ‘ noise.’ The third meaning approaches 
the rt. stan (No. 220) in many of its applications; but it seems to me 
very hazardous to try and identify the two roots under this meaning, 
as has been attempted by Pott 1’. 255, Benf. i. 675, and lately by 
Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 436, Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 375, Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 
The Skt. tdma-s = the Gk. révo-s ‘tension’ and ‘tone,’ reivew Bony, 
narayov (Soph, ‘ Ant.’ 124) ‘raise a cry, a noise,’ originally ‘make a 
cry stretch itself, continue. Since the Gk. usage proves that 
the linguistic instinct perceived some connexion between the ideas 
‘stretch’ and ‘resound’ (a connexion perhaps helped by the notion 
‘continuari’), we may believe the like of the other peoples too 
(cp. ‘Ptsb. Wtb.,’ s. v. tana). It would be astounding indeed if the s 
of the rt. stan had been lost in four languages, while at the same time 
the root was preserved intact in three. — We may notice the Skt. tan 
‘duration,’ instrum. tan-@ (adv.) ‘on and on,’ by the side of the Lat. 
tenus. — On a-rev-ns cp. Clemm ‘Stud.’ vii. 96. We must add too the 
meaning ‘hold,’ which is arrived at through the notion ‘stretch,’ 
-and which meets us in ¢enere and in the Gk. 77, which I have compared 
with the Lith. permissive té (‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 91). — The Lith. p reminds us 
of the p in the Lat. tem-p-to, the connexion of which with our root 
Ebel doubts (‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 442). But temptare clearly means properly 
‘to extend or stretch something repeatedly’ until it fits. Corssen 
‘ Ausspr.’ 1”. 123, however, considers ¢entare the etymologically correct 
218 spelling. Other conjectures are made by Fick i°. 594. — On derived 
forms with s see Pott ii”. 603.— Perhaps besides tendo, the Ose. tad- 
ait, which Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 94 translates by ‘tendat,’ belongs to a 
root with added d. May not also émi-rné-es ‘intente,’ with émrndevos 
and emrndevo, belong to the same root? Cp. p. 65.— The Olr. tan 
‘time’ goes with the Skt. tan ‘duration’ (similarly the Lat. tempus 
with the Lith. tempi). 


230 b. Root tar re-ray-év grasping.— Lat. tag-o, tan-g-o, 
tag-ax, tac-tu-s, tac-tio. — Goth. ték-an touch (2). 


Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 185.— The identity of the Gk. and Lat. roots, 
ignored by Pott W. ii. 443 ff. no one will doubt. In Gothic the 
initial has not its regular representative, but the meaning is so com- 
pletely identical with that of the Graeco-Italian words that we must 
agree here to admit an exception—and Lottner has collected several. 
To ték-an is allied the AS. tac-an, Eng. take, which we must not 
with Grassmann (‘Ztschr.’ xii. 107), separate from the Goth. word and 
connect with déyoua (rt. dex), Might not the root be stag, and so the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 259 


persistence of the tenuis be explained by the dropped s? We became 
acquainted under No. 226 with one or two forms which presupposed 
such a root, whose meaning could without any difficulty be reconciled 
with such a root. — Fick i%. 823 compares the Skt. taq-dt ‘ suddenly ’ 
and the rt. tug (tufig-d-mi) ‘ knock,’ ‘thrust,’ ‘knock against,’ but 
prefers to connect it with the Goth. st¢gqvan ‘ knock’ rather than 
with tékan. — There is much to be said for the comparison of rayyé-s 
‘rancid,’ rdyyn, tayyos ‘rancor,’ tayyifew ‘rancescere’ with the OHG. 
stincan ‘stink, which corresponds in sound to the above-mentioned 
Gothic verb. 


231. Root tak r7#x-w melt (€-rdk-nv), Tax-epd-s melting, 
liquid, tnKxe-ddév (st. tnKedov) a melting away, 
THyY-avo-v saucepan, crucible, rayv-s quick, Téyx-os 
quickness. 

Skt. tak (tak-ti) shoot, dash, hurry, ték-u-s, tak-vd-s 
hurrying.— Zd. tac run, flow, vi-takh-ti thaw- 
ing, running (of liquefying solids). 

ChSl. tek-@ run, flow, tek-% run (subst.), tok-% 
stream. 

Olr. techim I flee. 


Fick 1°. 587 f., Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 327, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 

104.— On the aspirate in raxv-s see below p. 507. — The variety of 
‘meanings, which is at first sight surprising, is to be explained by the 
connecting notion of flowing. — The words which, owing to the simi- 
larity of their meaning, I formerly connected with ryxew (Lat. tabé-s, 
AS. thdwan ‘thaw,’ ChSl. ta-ja ‘liquefio’) cannot without difficulty be 
reconciled with it in sound, and had therefore better be kept quite 
apart. — On the Ir. tém ‘death,’ which Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 327 puts 
here, cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 217. 


232. ratpo-s steer.— Skt. sthuird-s taurus, Zend ctaora 
draught-ox. — Lat. tauru-s, Umbr. turu. — Goth. 
stiur, ON. thér-r bos castratus.—ChSl. turd% steer. 

Kuhn in Weber’s ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 339, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 113, ‘ Beitr,’ 
i, 238. — The etymology is to be found in the adjectival use of the Skt. 
sthiird-s, sthild-s, sthdévira-s ‘firm,’ ‘strong,’ the latter an epithet of 
the steer (Nos. 217, 228).— Pott W. i. 361. 

233. Root tap é-rad-o-v I was astonished, 7éd-os aston- 219 
ishment. 

Skt. stambh (stabh-nd-mi) to make spell-bound, stab- 
dhd-s stiff, rigid, stambh-as torpor, paralysis. 
S 2 


260 BOOK II. 


Lith. steb-it%-s I am astonished. 
Olr. t2biw I laugh. 

Benf. i. 651, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 16, Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 440. — 
Owing to the influence of the s stabh became cOaf and then this 
lost the « and became 6ad. The objection the Greeks had to two 
simple aspirates at the beginning of neighbouring syllables changed 
sometimes the first aspirate into the tenuis (raf), and sometimes the 
second (@ar). The latter form (ré-@n7-a) suffered nasalization and 
softening in OdpyB8-os and OayB8-é-o, and simple softening of the final 
consonant in 678-os * ada (Hesych.).— stup-eo comes in the same way 
from the rt. stap (No. 224).— Cp. Nos. 219, 216.— For 6at-ya see 
No. 308. | 

233 b. The pronominal stem re (for rFfe), Dor. rv, Boeot. 
tov-v, Tov thou, red-s thy. —Skt. st. tua, tva-m, 
Zd. ta-m thou, Skt. tud-s, Zd. thwa thy.— Lat. st. 
te tu, tuu-s.—- Goth. thu thou (Germ. dw), thein-s 
thy. — Lith. t& thou, tavds-is thine, ChSl. ty thou, 
tvo-) thy. — Olr. tw thou, -t- thee, no-t-ail alit te, 
do thy, inserted -t-, du-t-menmain menti tuae. 

Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ i. 122, Schleicher ‘Compend.’ 626 ff. — Ahrens 
‘Aeol.’ 207, ‘ Dor.’ 248.—The softening in ordinary Gk. to ce, ov ete. 
need not be dwelt on. 

234. réyy-w moisten, soften, réygi-s a moistening. — Lat. 
ting-o, tinc-tu-s, tinc-tura, tinc-tio, tinct-ili-s. — 
OHG. thunc-on, dunc-on tingere. 

Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ i. 168. Pott W. iii. 461.— It was formerly 
held, from a consideration of the Goth. thvah-a ‘wash,’ that the media 
was softened from the tenuis— and on this supposition Fick i*. 606 
compares the Skt. tue ‘drip’—but the OHG. verb coincides both 
in sound and sense with the Graeco-Italic ones. — révay-os ‘ vadum,’ 
which it 1s sought to identify with stagnu-m, can hardly be connected 
with this root. 

235. Root tex €rex-o-v, Tix-T-@ generate, Téx-0s, TéK-VO-V 
child, rox-ev-s begetter, téxo-s birth, interest. — 
Ték-pap alm, goal, rex-yyp-.o-v token, Téxpunooa, 
Togo-v bow, toaaas (Pind.) hitting, happening, 
TEx-vn art. — Téx-T-wy (st. TexTov) carpenter. — 
Root tuk tuy Tvyx-dv-w (€-Tvx-0-v) hit, TUyx-n suc- 
cess, Tevy-w, TE-TUK-ovTo they prepared, tvUK-o-$ 
chisel, 7etx-po-s, redx-os implement. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 261 


Skt. ték-man child, tak-sh to hew, prepare, make 
(OPers. takhsh build), ték-sh-@ (st. tak-sh-an) 
wood-cutter, carpenter, taksh-ana-m a hewing, an 
axe, tokd-s proles. — Zd. tash cut, do carpenter’s 
work, tasha (m.) axe, tas-ta dish, cup, tuc beget. 

Lat. tig-nu-m, te-lu-m, té-mo, tex-o, tex-tor, textura, 
té-la. 

Goth. theth-a flourish(?), OS. thigg-ju, OHG. dig-ju 220 
obtineo, impetro, OHG. déh-s-a hoe, trowel, 
MHG. déhsen to dress flax, dih-sel shaft, pole 
(Germ. Deichsel). 

Lith. tek-y-s ram, tenk-w fall to the lot of, tink-w 
fit, suit, tink-a-s it happens, tik-ra-s right, proper, 
OPr. tik-in-t facere, teckusna creatio, Lith. tcky-te 
to aim, faszy-ti make (of a carpenter), hew at, 
taisy-ti prepare; ChSl. t&k-na-ti figere, ttéik-a-ti 
texere, 7s-ttik-na-ti effodere, tes-a-tt caedere(Bohem. 
tesa’ faber), tes-la axe. 


Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. taksh, Pott 11%. 614, W. 11. 2, 401, 404, 11. 799, 804, 
Benf. ii. 247 ff., Pictet 11.127, Fick i*. 588, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ i. 52. — 
On the change of vowel and the three main meanings ‘generate,’ 
‘hit,’ ‘prepare’ cp. above p. 58.— The root is one of the oldest 
applied to any kind of occupation without any clearly defined dis- 
tinction, so that we must not be astonished if we meet the weaver in 
the company of the carpenter and the marksman. In the Zd. tas-ta 
‘dish,’ which we cannot separate from the Lat. testa, we find traces 
of the potter as well. The Germ. treffen ‘hit,’ ‘hit upon,’ ‘ happen,’ 
illustrates the change from these active meanings to the intransitive 
one of rvx<iv. The x is only an affected « (cp. below p. 501 ff.). For 
ruxeiv, the intransitive of red£ar, rerux-€-cOar, we get analogies in the 
OHG. digju, and the Lith. tink-%, and the Lith. tink-a-s is specially 
instructive. I now connect retyos with No. 145. Some of the Slav. 
words, especially the rt. tk, are regarded differently by Miklosich 
(‘ Lex.’ p. 1017). — The rt. taksh is formed by the addition of an s and 
to it belongs the Lat. tewere and the OHG. dehs-a, rék-r-wy arose by 
assimilation from tex-c-wv (cp. p. 698). — Side by side with taksh we 
find the rare tvaksh with the same meanings. Acc. to some scholars 
this contains the primary rt. tvak, from which we might arrive at tuk, 
tux, and (though not so well) at tak. In any case the rts. tak and 
tuk have been in use side by side from the earliest times. — Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 327 finds a counterpart to the ChSl. tesla in the Olt. tal 


262 BOOK Il. 


‘ascia,’ but the OIr. twag ‘bow’ does not belong here, but to the Skt. 
tw ‘strike,’ ‘ urge forwards.’ 


236. Root ted, Tad TAA-vae endure, TéAa-s (st. TaAav), Tro- 
NU-TAG-s, TAAA-6-s, TAH-pov (st. TAnpov) wretched, 
7aéd-avto-v balance, weight, d-réAavto-s of equal 
weight, equal to, réA-apo-s basket, reAa-pov strap, 
supporter (in architecture), 76A-na strength to bear 
and to dare, roApa-o bear, dare, Tév-rado-s. 

Skt. tul (told Ja-mi, tula-j-a-mt) lift up, weigh, esteem 
equal, tul-a scales, tuél-ja-s ie tolana-m a lifting 
up, weighing. 

OLat. tul-o, te-tul-i, Lat. tu-li, (t)ld-tu-s, toll-o, subst. 
toll-o, tolleno, tolerare, tol-t%-tim. 

Goth. thul-a dvéxouat (OEng. thole), us-thul-ain-s 
patience, OHG. délem, dultu I suffer (Germ. dulde). 

ChSl. twl-% pharetra. 


Bopp ‘G1. Pott W. ii 1, 394, ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 337, Benf. ii. 258, who 
221 follows Pott, and justly so, in referring dv-rAé-w ‘draw’ (water) to 
ava and tAa. The instrument for drawing water was called in Lat. 
tollo, tolleno ‘ genus machinae, quo trahitur aqua, alteram partem prae- 
gravante pondere, dictus a tollendo’ (Fest. p. 356). tdAapo-s, the wool- 
spinner’s basket for carrying and hanging up, belongs clearly to this 
stem. Special notice should be paid to the agreement between rad- 
avrov and the Skt. tula (cp. pondus ‘ pound’), which also denotes a 
special weight, and to that between drddavros and tidjas (cp. iodp- 
poros). With the latter Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 114 connects also the Chl. 
pri-tul-c-tt ‘accommodare ;’ he doubts the connexion of the Ch§l. 
tul-vi, but the origin of dap-¢-rpa of the same meaning makes it very 
probable (cp. above p. 115). — tal is no doubt to be regarded as the 
Indo-Germ. root ; the a has degenerated in Skt., Teut., and Chl. to w. 
The primary meaning is ‘raise,’ ‘lift,’ ‘carry.’ All the three a- 
sounds appear in Gk. To red belongs réA-os in the sense of ‘ tax’ (cp. 
dédpos), ‘ office,’ ‘ task,’ which is a completely distinct word from réA-os 
‘end’ (No. 238), and further also the hitherto little recognized ré\\o 
with its two modifications of meaning, i.e. (1) intransitive rise of 
constellations, so in dvaréAdew, éEavaréddrew, emireAdeoOa, mepiredAdeo bat, 
bmepreiAas 6 FAvos Hat. iti. 104, similarly Cic. ‘ Brut.’ vii. 26 ‘ orator se 
extulit ;’ (2) transitive, properly ‘lift over somebody,’ ‘lay upon,’ 
‘enjoin,’ so in émréAdew, evreddew, the latter meaning comes nearest to 
the common usage of ¢wlzt.— In Lat. folisthe primary form; the o is 
preserved in the OLat. tolerint, tolz (Corssen ii”. 73), in éollo (per- 
haps as Corssen holds ‘Beitr.’ 209 from tol-jo), tol-d-tim ‘trotting’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 263 


(which may well be from told-tim from a secondary verb tolo-o= 
radd-w, cp. ‘db. d. Spuren einer lat. O-Conj. Symbola philolog. Bonn.’ 
1, p. 271 ff.) and in other forms, while elsewhere it has been weakened 
tow. So in Tullu-s, Tulliu-s which acc. to Theod. Mommsen ‘ Rh. 
Mus.’ xv. 197 is ‘from tollere,’ and acc. to Rob. Mowat ‘ Revue 
Archéolog.’ 1868 p. 359 is the counterpart of ‘projectus.’ [Cf. Z'ud- 
lianum ‘the well-house’ (Burn’s Rome p. 81), and Festus p. 352: 
‘tullios alii dixerunt esse silanos, alii rivos alii vehementes proiectiones 
Sanguinis arcuatim fluentis quales sunt Tiburi in Aniene. Ennius in 
Aiace sanguine tepido tullit efflantes volant.’| Perhaps we should be 
right in adding rodtr-n ‘clew,’ ‘pensum,’ with added 7, whence comes 
Todvrevew ‘unwind,’ ‘accomplish ’ (work), which has already in Homer 
its metaphorical meaning (Déderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 2390). — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
Vill. 328 identifies with rAyrés the Cymr. tlawd ‘poor,’ ‘wretched,’ and 
compares with the Lat. tol/o the Ir. tallatm ‘I take away.’ 


237. Root tep, tay Téu-v-w (€-rTap-o-v), TUn-y-@ cut, TOU-7 
a cutting, Tuj-ua, Té-a-yx-os slice, segment, Top- 
ev-s knife, rayu-fa-s dispenser, steward, tapin 
housekeeper. 

ChSl. tin-q@ inf. te-ti scindere. 


Benf. ii. 245, Fick 1°. 594. The Skt, tém-dla-s that used to be 
compared appears in the ‘ Ptsb. Wtb.’ with the meaning among many 
others of ‘sword,’ but this meaning has no authority, and the others 
start from the primary notion ‘dark’ (cp. tém-as ‘ darkness’). The 
rt. tam too has accordingly the meaning ‘to choke,’ ‘to stand still,’ 
‘to pinch.’ All this group must therefore be put aside altogether. 
On the other hand we can hardly question the relationship of réu-evos 
‘district,’ ‘a piece of land marked off’ and tem-p-lu-m (répevos aidépos 
Aesch. ‘ Pers.’ 365=‘ caeli templa’ Enn.). Cp. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 440, | 
Usener ‘ Fleckeisen’s Jahrb. 1878,’ 59 ff. Further ton-d-é-re belongs 
to these words (Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 414): its 2 arose from m through 
the influence of the determinative d (=dh) as in fren-d-e-re ‘ gnash 
the teeth’ compared with xpdp-ado-s (No. 200 b). revd-ew ‘gnaw’ 
too, rév0-n-s ‘a sweet-tooth,’ seem to have sprung from a similar 
secondary root. The stem of tyay and rep-a-x is formed by the 222 
addition of a guttural. Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 376 compares piaxos* 
piacpa (Hes.) with réuayos.— On the interchange between the nasals 
see below p. 545 ff. Fick connects also the Lat. ¢¢n-ea ‘moth.’ 


238. rép-ua goal, extreme point, réppav (st. Teppor) 
boundary, rép-@po-v end, point, Tépp-to-s Teppt- 
det-s reaching to the boundary. 


264 BOOK II. 


Skt. tar (¢ér-G-mi) take across, go through, over- 
come, tar-an-a-s, tar-t-s boat, tar-antd-s sea, tdr- 
man top of the sacrificial stake, tirds, Zd. tard 
trans, Skt. ttra-m bank, border. 

Lat. ter-mo, ter-men, ter-minu-s, Osc. teremenniu, 
Umbr. termnu, in-tra-re, ex-tra-re, trans, Umb. 
traf = trans. 

ON. thré-m-r margo, OHG. dru-m meta, finis, Goth. 
thatr-h, OHG. durh through (Germ. durch). 

OlIr. tar trans, Cymr. tra(ch); Olr. tairm-thecht 
transgressio; tz, tre through, Cymr. trot, trwy. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 261. — The primary meaning of the words 
here collected is overstep. rép-pwov and ter-minu-s might be trans- 
lated ‘that which is stepped over.’ Probably Tdpa-s (st. Tapavr) 
belongs here as well, cp. TWepaed-s (No. 357), perhaps even Tpo-ia, 
Tpo-.¢jv, on the ¢ in which see p. 632. — The same root appears with 
X instead of p in réA-os which corresponds in sound to the Skt. tér-as 
‘a pressing forwards,’ ‘strength’ (that makes its way through; cp. 
topd-s, Sud-ropo-s, tpa-v-ns), and clearly accordingly denotes the attained 
goal; with it come redéw, rédetos, reXeuTn, but not the words mentioned 
under No. 236. — ex-tra-bunt Afranius Ribbeck ‘Com.’ p. 141, ter-mo 
Enn. ‘ Ann.’ 470 sq. Vahlen, ter-men Varro ‘L. L.’ v. § 21 Miill., Osc. 
teremennit (Corssen 1°. 573), Umbr. termnu, traf Aufr. u. Kirchh. i. 
157, where too a conjecture is hazarded on érdme(t)s which is cer- 
tainly related. — Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 276 ingeniously explains 7'ras- 
im-enu-s as ‘that on the yonder side.’ The fA in the Teutonic thair-h 
must be the representative of a derivative & The meaning through 
is related to that of trans as titpd@ is to teipw (No. 239). 


239. Root tep reip-w, tpv-w, Tpi-B-w, Tpv-y-w rub, Tl- 
Tpad-, TE-Tpaiv-w rub away, pierce, Tep-é-w bore, 
turn on a lathe, 7ép-e-rpo-v a gimlet, €-rop-e 
pierced, vép-o-s chisel, tép-vo-s a pair of com- 
passes, a turner’s chisel, rop-ed-w grave, sculpture, 
Tpv-pa hole. 

Lat. ter-o, ter-e(t)-s, ter-e-bra, tri-bula tribulare, trv- 
ti-cu-m, tur-unda a roll, cake, tru-a ladle, tar- 
me(t)-s wood-worm. 

AS. thrad-v-an torquere, OHG. drd-j-an tornare, Goth. 
thair-ké hole, eye of a needle (rpuparid). 

Ch8l. tré-t7, try-ti terere, Lith. trin-ti rub, file. 


~ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 265 


Olr. tarathar terebra, Cymr. tarater (Z*. 831). 


Bopp ‘G1.’ s. v. ¢7, Pott W. ii. 1, 285, Benf. ii. 260, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 
112, Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 136, Leo Meyer viii. 259. The words 
here collected fall, as regards sound, under one or other of the primary 
forms tar (rep, rop), tra, tri, tru, which supplement and approach each 
other in endless ways. The meanings we may divide into two main classes, 
rub and bore. The second is Graeco-Italian, the first European in gene- 
ral (Cp. Fick. i* 595). —'To the meaning rub (ep. tritus, contritus, dé- 
ter-cor) belong reptvn-s* rerpippévos dvos Kai yépwv (cp. No. 130), repv° 
doGevés Nemrdv, TepvoKero* ereipero (Hes.). Cp. also the Skt. tand-s, the 
Lat. tenui-s, ten-er (No. 230) and den-ré-s. Further t77-ti-cu-m like 
gra-nu-m from the rt. gar (No. 130, cp. Hehn 400, otherwise Ascoli 
‘Ztschr.’ xii. 451). From the meaning of ‘ boring’ we get tur-unda 
“macaroni, in which the hollowness is the essential thing, not (Corss. 
‘ Beitr.’ 126) the roundness. It is certain, at all events, that from the 
meaning ‘rub’ springs that of a ‘ twisting movement,’ most clearly to 
be seen in the Teutonic words, to which Regel ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 114 ff. 
adds many provincialisms. To this class belong rep-¢-o and also 
the Lat. ¢eve-s (Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 257). Since now ¢éar-ald-s in Skt. 
means ‘moving hither and thither, ‘starting,’ ‘ trembling,’ this was 
perhaps the primary meaning from which the derived rts. tram (No. 
245), and tras (No. 244) started. Under No. 238 are several words 
similar in sound, but it is better to consider the two groups as dis- 
tinct. Fick ‘ Bezzenb.’ i. 335 refers rop-vvn ‘ladle’ along with the 
synonymous Lat. é¢rwa and the ON. thvara ‘twirling-stick’ to a rt. 
ivar. — t.-Tpd- is to be regarded as intensive, rpv-x-«, instead of Hesy- 
chius’s rept-ck-«, rpvok-, as causative (cp. p. 710). Opav-o ‘ break up’ 
comes near to tpai-ua ‘wound,’ this latter to ri-rpa-cx-w, and this 
to the Homeric é-rop-e (A 236). @ may have arisen through the 
influence of the p. On the other hand it is true Opav-« suggests the 
Lat. frau-(d)-s, frus-tu-m, frus-tra (‘Ztschr.’ ii. 399) and the Skt. 
dhri-ti-s ‘ disappointment,’ dhiir-v ‘bend,’ ‘injure.’ In case it belongs 
to the latter we must assume a rt. dhru. Cp. Pott W.i. 1092, Fréhde 
‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 179. Among the lengthened stems rpum (rpima 
‘hole,’ rpv-7-avo-v ‘ gimlet,’ tpu-7-d-w) is most distinct, suggesting in 
sound the Lith. trwp-a ‘crumble’ and trup-w-s ‘ loose,’ and remaining 
as true to the meaning ‘ bore’ as tpu-f-7, Optm-r- to that of ‘rubbing 
away, which is afterwards applied like rpvy- to softness of character. 
tpi-B-w is hardest to explain. 


239 b. rép-ny (st. 7epev) tender, fine, 0pé-va flowers, herbs, 
Tad-.-s bride. 
Skt. tdr-una-s, tél-una-s youthful, tender, tdél-uni 


223 


266 BOOK Il. 


girl, young woman, tar-na-s calf, tr-na-s grass, 
plant. 

Sabine ter-enu-m, Lat. Teren-tiu-s, oves, nuces 
terentinae, tiro(n). 

Goth. thaur-nu-s thorn. 

ChSl. tr%-n&% thorn, tele calf, Lith. telycza heel. 


These words I formerly placed in great part under No. 239, deriv- 
ing the notion tender (cp. Lat. teres) from that of ‘rubbing.’ It now 
seems to me advisable to give them under a separate head (cp. Fick 1°. 
90), conjecturing the primary meaning to be ‘projecting,’ ‘ shoot,’ 
‘sprout,’ applied now to plants, now to young living beings (cp. Oddos). 

224 Similarly Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ under téruna.—O6pdva by aspiration 
(below p. 501) instead of Hesychius’s rpdva. rats is a rare word, ex- 
plained by peddAdyapos mapbévos. — Sabine ter-enu-m, etc. Macrobius 
‘Sat.’ ii, 14. — The meaning ‘ thorn’ seems to have come from that of 
‘ projecting point,’ as the Lat. spi-na seems related with spi-ca (Van. 
1168). — On fro cp. Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 358, Corssen i”, 511. 


240. Root tept répm-@ (Tpam-el-ouev) delight, répwi-s, 
TEPT-WAH JOY, TepT-vd-s delightful. 

Skt. tarp (trmp-d-mi, trp-no-mi, trp-d-mi) am filled, 
enjoy, tarpd-ja-mi satiate, content, tarp-ana-m, 
t/p-ti-s satiation, gratification. — Zd. thrdf-anh 
food. 


Goth. thraf-st-ja console. 
Lith. tarp-a increase, prosperity, growth, tdrp-ti 
flourish. 


Bopp ‘GI. Pott W. v. 122, who considers tpépo to be the 
same word ; this is rendered probable by the fact that in Zend too 
the rt. tarep=Skt. tarp becomes thrdf. So Fick i°. 599. There are, 
however, uses of the rt. tpep such as ydda tpepew ‘to make milk 
curdle,’ and mepirpeperar E 903 (I. Bekker after Apollon. Soph., and 
Herodian), rpége xipa, rappées ‘thick,’ rappos ‘ thicket,’ and tpadepy 
‘mainland,’ which can only be deduced from repz by circuitous routes, 
and are on this account put by Fick along with the Lat. torpére= 
Lith. tirp-ti ‘be torpid.’ Nevertheless I consider the identity of repr 
and rpep more probable than Sonne’s combination in ‘ Ztschr.’ xiii, 
410. The aspirate is a late growth as in ddcipo rt. dur (No. 340). 
The union of the notions ‘ fill,’ ‘ delight,’ and ‘comfort’ is genuinely 
vulgar: as genuinely Greek is the separation of the two former 
notions by means of different orders of sound. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. . 267 


241. Root tepc répo-o-war become dry, repo-aiv-m make 
dry, tpac-1é, Tapo-ié drying-kiln, rapo-d-s wicker- 
work. | 

Skt. tarsh (trsh-jé-mi) thirst, pant, trsh, tarsha-s 
thirst. — Zd. tarsh-na (m.) thirst. 

Lat. torr-eo, tos-tu-s, tostare, torr-i-s torch, torr-en-s 
torrent. ‘ 

Goth. ga-thauvrs-an-s dry, thatirs-ja I thirst, thawrstet 
thirst, OHG. derr-u torreo. 

Olr. tart thirst, térim aridus. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. 11.2, 406, Benf. 11.265, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 403, Stokes 
‘Tr. Gl.’ 703.—The Teutonic words are a connecting link between ‘dry’ 
and ‘thirst.’ [See Skeat’s ‘Dict.’ s.v. dry.] Cp. rodvdirov ”Apyos, dipia 
Kévis. —: Tpacia ‘7d ék KaAdwouv mAéypa, ep ob Yroyerar Ta otra’ Pollux vii. 
144, cp. ‘HE. M.’ p. 764, 25; through this word we get to the meaning 
of rapoé-s which has, however, other and secondary meanings. No 
connexion whatever can be allowed with 6ép-a in spite of Hesych. 
Oappia’ rapord (Lob. ‘El.’ i. 494). — torr-eo is naturally for tors-eo, and 
tos-tu-s for tors-tu-s. Pott compares terra as well, which in that 
case was originally the opposite to mare, tes-ta (cp. lateres coctiles, 
but also the Zd. tasta under No. 235) and ftesgu-a ‘wilderness,’ 
‘desert.’ Cp. Corssen i%, 243.—The Olr. tirim ‘dry’ points to a 
stem tarsmz; tir ‘land’ (Z?. 233) has been left out here because it 
denotes land as éerritory and not as opposed to water, cp. Ebel ‘Beitr.’ 
hi. 158. 

242. rérpi€, Térpag, TeTpawv a kind of fowl, rerpa¢-w 
cackle.— Skt. tittiri-s, tittird-s partridge. — ON. 
thidhur-r grouse, heath-cock. — Lith. tetérva black 
grouse (Nesselm.), ChSl. tetrévt pheasant. 

Pott i, xxx, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr,’ iii. 52, Fick i*. 590. — The ono- 
matopoeia is unmistakeable. 

243, rér7a papa. — Skt. tdtd-s (especially in the voc.) form 
of address used by parents to son or vice versa. — 
Lat. tata papa. — Bohem. tdéta father, Lith. téa, 
tétt-s papa, tetd, ChSl. teta aunt. — Corn. tat father 
{whence Eng. dad], hendat avus (Z?. 1067). 

Kuhn ‘ Ind. Studien’ i. 325, Benf. ii. 832, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 329. 
— A title of endearment. Frdhner ‘ Heidelb. Jahrb. 1862’ p. 768 re- 
minds us of the gens Tettia. — Buschmann ‘ iiber den Naturlaut’ Berl. 
1853, p. 18 f. — Cp. No. 207. 


268 BOOK II. 


244. Root tpec tpé-@ (Homeric aor. tpéooa) flee, tremble, 
Tpn-po-s, TpH-p-ev fugitive, timorous, &-Tpeo-To-s 
undismayed. 

Skt. tras (trds-d-mi, trds-jd-mi) shudder, apa-tras 
flee, tras-a-s unstable, a-tras-ta-s undismayed, 
tras-a-s fright.— Zd. tare¢ tremble, tars-ti fright. 

Lat. terr-e-o, terr-or. 

ChSl. tres-a quatio, tres-a@ se tremo. 

Ir. tarrach (st. tarsaco) timorous. 

Bopp ‘GI,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 411, ii% 425, Benf. ii. 253, Schleich. 
‘Ksl.’ 113, Stokes ‘Corm. Tr.’ p. 162. — On the late form rpeiw cp. 
‘Gk. Verb’ p. 210. érepo-ev ig explained in the manuscript of 
Hesych. by épé8noev, which M. Schmidt has too hastily altered to 
€o8nén. Who is to say that the stem which resembles terr-eo (for 
ters-eo) in sound had not, like it, a transitive meaning? The shorter 
rt. tra, tar, of which éras and tram may be secondary forms, has been 
discussed at No. 239, and to it no doubt belong the adjectives 
érpnpo-s, 6rpadéo-s ‘quick’ which have so often been connected with 
our present root (Lob. ‘El.’ 81). On the meaning of rpé-o see Lehrs 
‘Arist.2’ 77.  tpnpd-s Hesych. édadpés, Setdds. — tris-ti-s which Bopp 
compares has a meaning which will not suit this root (cp. Corssen 
‘Nachtr.’ 248). Joh. Schmidt, ‘Voc.’ 11. 362, in respect of the 
derived meaning ‘rough,’ ‘ bitter’ (of taste), compares it with the Skt. 
irsh-td-s ‘rough,’ cp. Fick i°.601. Perhaps the primary meaning was 
‘dry’ (No. 241), cp. oxAnpds, aus-tér-us.— The nearest to the Lat. 
tristis is the Olr. toris acc. tristitiam, towrsich tristes (Z?. 243, 226). 


245. Root tpeu tpéu-w tremble, tpdpuo-s trembling, rpop- 
epo-s quaking, re-Tpep-aiv-w, tTpopé-w tremble, 
a-Tpéuas still, quiet. — Lat. trem-o, trem-or, trem- 
ulu-s.— Lith. trim-u I tremble. | 

926 Only European. Cp. Nos. 239, 244.— Fick 1°. 604, who rightly 
regards ‘start, ‘move oneself,’ as the primary notion, and hence 
connects also the OS. thrimman ‘jump,’ ‘hop. Pott W. ii. 2, 180. 

246. Stem tpi rpeis, tpi-a three, rpi-ro-s, rpi-s, tpirod-s 
threefold. 

Skt. st. trz trajas tres, tr-tija-s tertius, tri-s ter. — 
Zd. thri tres, thri-tya, thris. 

Lat. st. tra tré-s, tri-a, ter-tiu-s, ter. 

Goth. st. thri threis, n. thrija tres, tria, thri-dja 
tertius, Germ. dre. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 269 


ChSl. st. trd trie tres, tria, tre-tii tertius, Lith. trys 
tres, tré-cza-s tertius. 
Olt. tré f. teotr tres, Cymr. trydydd tertius. 


Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 66, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 190. — The Lat. ter-ti-ws has 
an analogy in the Skt. ¢r-t¢ija-s and in the Aeol. rép-ro-s (Ahr. ‘ Aeol.’ 
56).— The Olr. teotr for *tesor-es=Skt. tisr-as, Windisch ‘ Auslauts- 
ges. p. 220; Cymr. trydydd= Goth. thridja, Rhys ‘ Rev. Celt.’ ii. 116. 


247, Root tu 7v-Ao-s, T0-A7n hard swelling, knot (in wood), 
hump, TvAd-w make swellings, rav-s* wéyas, roAvs, 
Tauvas’ weyadvvas (Hesych.) Ti-rv-6-s (?). 

Skt. tu. (t@u-mi and tav-i-mi) have weight, power, 
tuv-t in comp. powerful, very much, té-m-ra-s 
swelling, plump, tu-tu-md-s plentiful. — Zend tu 
to have the power, tavan rich. 

Lat. tui-b-er, tu-m-or, tu-m-e-o, tum-idu-s, tum-ulu-s (2), 
Umb. and Ose. tau-ta, tota, touta town, Ose. twv- 
tik-s belonging to the town. 

AS. thi-ma, OHG. da-mo thumb (Germ. Daumen), 
Goth. thiu-da populus. 

ChSl. ty-ti pinguescere, tu-ki% adeps, Lith. tau-ka-¢ 
fat (subst.), tunk-w get fat, OPr. tau-ta country. 

Oly. tuath f. populus ; Cymr. tut populus, twf vigor 
(Z?, 92). 

Bopp ‘ Vel. Gr.’ ii. 372, 382, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 113, Pott W. i. 793.— 
The meanings ‘swell,’ ‘grow,’ ‘be large’ are unmistakeably clear, 
whence come the notions of ‘ people,’ ‘ community ’—transferred to the 
place, ‘country,’ ‘town ’—just as in po-pu-lus, ple-b-s (No. 366), médu-s 
by the side of ple-o and modv-s. Cp. Mommsen ‘ Unterital. D.’ 304. — 
The Skt. twv is exactly like rai (Ion. rni, cp. Ion. ypni-s [G. Meyer in 
‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 488 |), tuvi-ga-td-s ‘of a strong nature,’ cp. Tav-yero-s (Fick 
1°, 557). — tu-m-eo has like the Skt. tém-ra-s an m added to the root. 
These words diverge widelyin meaning from the Skt. twmala-s, tumula-s 
‘noisy,’ ¢wmula-m ‘noise,’ which must be compared with tumul-tu-s. 
According to Fick i°. 602, the connecting notion is that of ‘swell.’ In 
tu-ber (n.) I am inclined, in spite of Corssen’s objection (‘ Beitr.’ 247, 
157), to maintain that b has come from v, a change which may be ex- 
plained by the objection to the sound-group vu, wv (cp. ferb-ui), and 
to regard the v as the result of the preceding u (cp. plu-v-ia). — 
Perhaps the Olr. twus, tés (*tavas-tu) ‘initium,’ ¢éisech ‘princeps,’ 
belong here, cp. the Cymr. towyssogion ‘principes’ (Z?, 56); and 


270 BOOK II. 


further the OIr. twlach ‘hill.’ [Perhaps also Deut-sch: ep. Corssen 
Dest eick .o1, 0000, | 


248. Root tvs Tud-ed-s, Tvd-a-s, Tuvd-dpn-s, Tuvd-dpeo-s, 
Tuvé-dpew-s, Tuvd-dp-txo-s. 
227 Skt. tud (tud-d-mi) knock, pierce, tdt-tra-m point, 
prickle, ¢od-d-s pricker, horse-driver, prick. — 
Tida-s a man’s name. 
Lat. tu-n-d-o, tud-e(t)-s hammer, tud-i-tare, dea Per- 
tunda. 
Goth. staut-a timro, OHG. stédz-u (Germ. stossen) 
knock. ; 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ s.v. tud, Pott i4. 244, ‘Ztschr.’ ix. 172, Benf. i. 658, 
Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 6. — Especially Diintzer ‘ Hofer’s Ztschr.’ iv. 268. 
— The primary s has been retained in the Teutonic languages only. — 
Tud-ev-s etc. mean therefore ‘Striker,’ ‘Beater,’ or, if we go to the 
Lat. tudes, the ‘Hammer’ (cp. Karl Martell). Tuvd-dpn-s with nasali- 
zation (cp. the Skt. twnd-d-té) comes from an adj. ruvd-apo-s (cp. 
Aur-apé-s, oriB-apd-s), and from this the longer forms are derived 
(cp. Bpidpew-s). — Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 73 ‘ detudes detunsos, deminutos,’ which 
may be compared with ob-tisu-s. 


249. Root tun rv7-7-o strike, rzro-s, Tur}, TUu-pa stroke, 
blow, tu7-d(6)-s hammer, tUp7r-avo-y drum. 
Skt. tup, tump (tup-a-mi, top-G-mi) injure (also tuph). 
OHG. stumpf mancus, stumb-ald-n obtundere, stumph, 
ON. stwf-r stump, trunk. 
ChSl. tap-% obtusus, te-ti (1. s. pr. tep-a) rimrey, 
ttip-utt rodos. 

Bopp ‘GL,’ Benf. i. 657, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 113, Fick 1°. 826. — The 
Skt. root is unfortunately not supported by instances. The word 
pra-stump-a-tt given by the P. W. is remarkable. The s has been 
preserved here as in orumd¢et, which according to Hesych. means d6et 
as well as Bpovra, opel, and in the probably related orudedigew ‘ dash,’ 
‘press hard.’ In the developement of the meanings it is very similar 
to No. 248. 


250. rvp-By noise, TUpBa noisily, rupBd¢-m make a noise, 
TupPacé bustle, confusion, Tvp-p-idai Att. deme (?). 
Skt. tvar (tvar-é), tur (tur-ad-mz) hurry, tur-d-s quick, 
tvar-a (subst.) hurry. 
Lat. turb-a, turba-re, turb-o, tur-ma. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 271 


Benf. ii, 252, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 438, Pott W.i. 1, 315. — The initial 
also appears as o: ovpBn, oipBa (cp. under No. 577), with which 
comes the solitary orupBd¢w (Bekk. ‘ Anecd.’ 308). We may perhaps 
therefore regard stvar, stur as the oldest root. Whether, as Corssen 
supposes, the Teutonic Stur-m ‘storm’ and stiirz-en ‘dash’ (Diefenb. 
‘Vgl. Wtb.’ ii. 315), belong to the same root I cannot say. The rt. 
tup may also be seen in rupevera’ rapdrres Hesych., which can hardly 
come from ripos ‘cheese.’ The 8 in rip-8y Kraushaar (‘ Stud.’ ii. 430) 
considers to have come from v (Zd. taurvajéiti ‘he overpowers’). A 
Gk. rvp-un seems also to have been formed from the same root, and 
Tuppidac may be a derivative from it. With the Lat. twr-ma may be 
compared the AS. thrym ‘throng,’ ‘mass,’ ‘troop,’ and from this 
comes the probability that the Goth. thadrp, the OHG. dorf, Eng. 
thorp, which properly signifies ‘a coming together ’—hence the still- 
used Swiss expression ‘einen Dorf halten’ ‘to hold an assembly ’— 
together with the ON. thyrpaz ‘congregari’ also belong to the same 
root. The p is the regular representative of the Graeco-Italic 6. 
The Umbr. form trefu (Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ xiii. 179) is opposed to the 
supposition of a relationship with tribu-s (cp. Arem. treb ‘ vicus,’ 
OCymr. érebou ‘ turmae’ (Z?, 136), Olr. atreba for ad-treba ‘ habitat’), 
as the f of the Umbrian word cannot be reconciled with that b which 


=the Goth. py. Other words are compared by Diefenb. ‘Vgl. Wtb.’ 2 


ii, 699, and Corssen i”. 163. 


251. Root tum rid-w burn, rid-o-s smoke, darkness, 

stupefaction, tud-év, rugdeé-s whirlwind, rud-edar 
smoky vapour, Tuudpnoro-s (2). 

Skt. dhiip (dhtip-d-ja-mi) fumigate, burn incense, 
dhipa-s, dhtip-a-na-m frank-incense. 

MHG. dimpfen (Germ. dampfen) to smoke, evaporate. 

Lith. dump-i% to blow up a fire, d&mp-lés (plur.) 
bellows. 


Pott W. i. 2, 1069.— rv arose out of dvd, which in 6iyo has 
preserved the first aspirate, the ¢ from m as in No. 224; the Skt. 
dhiip is lengthened from the rt. dhu (No. 320). The root is never- 
theless given in this place because it does not come in well anywhere 
else. — rigo-s ‘smoke and darkness’ certainly belongs here and also 
rupedavds (Aristoph. ‘ Vesp.’ 1364). Probably rug-Ad-s ‘blind’ is also 
related, which would then mean ‘cloudy,’ ‘misty,’ ‘dim,’ as rudev 
means the wind ‘that brings darkness.’ The Goth. dawb-s ‘deaf’ 
and dwmb-s ‘dumb’ we may also compare with Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xii, 127, perhaps also with Hehn.’ 301 the Goth. dubo ‘dove’ on the 


229 


272 >” BOOK II. 


ground of its dark colour, which is also expressed in wéAea (Olr, dub 
‘dark,’ ‘ black’). , 


251b. bo-repo-s later, superl. to-raro-s. — Skt. wt-tara-s 
the upper, the later, wt-tamd-s the uppermost, the 
outermost, farthest. 

Bopp ‘ Vel. Gr.’ ili. 498, Pott i?. 637, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ v. 75.— The 
positive is given in the Skt. preposition wd ‘upon,’ ‘ out,’ which seems 
to have been retained in vo-mdné ‘barrier,’ ‘ bridge-tree,’ ‘ prop,’ 
properly that which ‘strikes up.’ The same preposition has in Goth. 
the form wt, in OHG. uz ‘out’ (Germ. aus) so that vorepos corresponds 
to the Germ. dusserer (outer) and voraros to ‘uttermost.’ There is no 
connexion with uliimu-s, ulterior (Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 301). Pott is 
probably right in comparing torépa ‘womb’ and wteru-s, which must 
have stood for wé-teru-s, and also the Skt. wd-dra-m (suff. ara) ‘ belly,’ 
which is no doubt, as we see from the Homeric veiarov és xevedva, ‘that 
which lies lower down’ (cp. &repa). Otherwise Fick ‘ Bezz. Beitr,’ 
i, 382, where however he neglects éarépa.— We may also compare 
the OIr. ud-, od- ‘ out,’ e.g. in conucbat ‘attollunt’ for con-ud-gabat 
(Z?. 885), which can hardly be separated from déad- (Z’. 878), which 
leads us to the prep. 6, da ‘ab’=Skt. dva ‘over away’ (Z?. 630). 


an 


A Greek 6 corresponds to an Indo-Germanic d, which has 
remained unchanged in Sanskrit, Zend (with the exception of 
an occasional change to dh), Latin, Church-Slavonic, Lithu- 
anian, and Old Irish, while it has become in Gothic ¢, in High 
German ¢ (sz in the middle of a word). 


252. Root a5 (cfad) avd-dv-w (€-ad-o-v, €-a5-a) please, 
75-o-wat I am glad, 74-os, 76-ov7 pleasure, 76-v-s, 
4du-po-s sweet, pleasant, do-pevo-s glad, éd-avéd-s 
sweet. 43 

Skt. svad, act. (sudd-d-mi) make sweet, pleasant, 
mid. (svdd-é) be sweet, pleasant, take pleasure in 
(with loc. svddaté=fderar), svad-t-s sweet to the 
taste, sweet, svdd-as a pleasant taste. 

Lat. sud-vi-s (for sudd-vi-s), sudd-e-0, sudd-u-s, 
Sudad-a, sudd-éla. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 273 


Goth. sdit-s mild, AS. svéte, OHG. suozi (Germ. siiss) 
Sweet. 

Lith. sald-&-s sweet, ChSl. slad-i-ti 7dvveiv, slad- 
u-kt& dulcis. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ cp. above p. 33, Benf. i. 367 f, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 134. — 
Traces of the F are preserved especially in the Homeric edade, i.e. 
€-o Fad-e, é-nvdave, éada, in the Lesbian Fadea (Ahr. ‘ Aeol. 31), in yadeiv" 
xapioacba, yaderOar* Adec0a (Hesych., Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 45, 53), and in the 
Locrian fefadnQora (Allen ‘Stud.’ ili. 247).— é-av-@ (Apoll. ‘Lex. 
n5et), 2 172, an epithet of oil, clearly belongs here in spite of 
Buttmann ‘Lexil’ uu. 14, probably too ¢-eS-vo-v for ofed-vo-v, on 
which cp. Lob, ‘El? 1. 59. 480s with the spir. lenis like jyap by the 
side of jyépa, idos by the side of iSpas, and ovddas (No, 281) by the side 
of 6dés. In the Slavo-Lithuanian family sv has become s?f.— The 
absence of the dental forbids us to compare the Cymr. chweg ‘ dulcis’ 
(Z?, 124; ‘Rev. Celt.’ 11.112), Still more doubtful is the Gall. 
Svadv-ri« (‘ Beitr.’ vill. 329), for the Ir. sadb (Corm.), Cymr. hdddef 
means ‘ dwelling,’ 


253. Root pd a&pd-@, apd-ev-m wet, apd-yd-s watering- 
place, &pd-a dirt, €p-pdd-a-Tai, paiv-w sprinkle, 
pavi-s drop (2). 
Skt. drd-rd-s moist, fresh, juicy, drdraja-mi I wet. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Benf. 11. 115, Pott W. iv. 326.—veo-apdé’ ddwny (& 346) 
in spite of the initial vowel, with the var. lect. veo-adée’ is remarkable. 
It induces Legerlotz (‘ Ztschr.’ x. 367) to assume a rt. Fapd, which is 
supposed to have come in its turn from Fap@ and to have preserved 
this its older shape in pa6-aive, pab-doow, pab-d-pry€. But nothing to 
support such a root is found in any other language. Other traces of 
a Ff are extremely doubtful, as is the quotation of a supposed Aeolic 
Bpavac=pava in the dust-heap of notes in the ‘excerpta cod, Vatic. 
p. 689 (Gregor. Corinth, p. 689), which Ahrens wisely hesitated to 
follow (‘ Aeol.’ 34 note), and the very ambiguous glosses of Hesych, 
which L. quotes. It is no unheard-of thing in post-homeric Greek 
for words beginning with a vowel to be treated in a precisely similar 
way to those which had in an older stage of the language a conso- 
nantal initial: e.g. d-ocpos, veo-avEnros, ico-evpys. If it is thought 
that this could not have happened in so early a time, the readiest 
conjecture is that the true reading is vesapdé’ (cp. velaipa), seeing that 
the word occurs but once. Joh. Schmidt (‘ Voc.’ 11. 460 f.) compares 
the ON. rida ‘besmear,’ ‘ bespatter,’ by the side of vrida.—If pad 
arose by metathesis from dpd (cp. rap and dpm No 331, the rt. ca 

ay 


274 BOOK II. 


No. 84 by the side of d« No. 2, the rt. Fa by the side of dF No. 587), 
we shall refer paiv-o to fad-vj-w, in which case the v would have to be 
considered formative, as in the ramifications of the rt. ga, dav (‘ Gk. 
Verb’ p. 217). 

254. BdérXa leech. — Lith. délé leech, tape-worm, snail. 

230 Pott W. i. 182, ii. 1, 459.— Although Bded\Aa connects itself with 
Bddd\ko ‘suck,’ while the Lith. word seems to stand by itself, I 
venture to put the two words together. Otherwise Pictet 1. 531, 
Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xi, 437. 

255. Bdé-w visio, Bdéo-pa, Bddro-s, BdvAA-w, Bdedupo-s, 
Bdedvoow. — Lat. vis-io, visiu-m Bdéopua. — Lith. 
béz-d-a-s Bdéopa, bez-d-% Bdéw, Bohem. bzd-t-tt 
Bdetv. , 

Pott W. ii. 1, 459, Fick 1°. 684.—The Gk. stem is Ades, to which 
corresponds the Lith. bez, where the d following it must be derivative. 
The Lat. v=6 is explained by Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 438 as arising 
from an older g (cp. p. 472 ff.). 

255 b. Bpad-v-s slow (Bdpd-itcro-s), Bpadd-rn(T)-s slow- 
ness. — Skt. mrd-u%-s (for mardu-s) soft, tender, 
mrdu-ta softness, weakness. — ChSl. mlad-% 
tener. — Olr. mall lentus, tardus. 

Benf. 1. 509, Bopp ‘ Gl.’—8 before p and A takes the place of p, cp. 
Bporo-s rt. pop (No. 468). On the difference of meaning cp. p. 113 f. 
and the note on No. 239. Bpddev ddivaros, which we formerly intro- 
duced there is certainly not in its right place in Hesych. M. Schmidt 
compares well Brady" advvarov.—The rt. mard has in Skt. the meaning 
‘bruise,’ ‘ gall..—The same root occurs with a prothetic 4 and the 
softer liquid in d-padd-ive ‘weaken’ (Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 227, Fick 1°, 
175; °721); 

255c. Root dac(?) dé-da-e-v he taught, de-da-dés taught, 
acquainted with, de-d¢-aca: to search out, 
da-7j-vat learn, da7-yvev acquainted with, a-da-7s 
unacquainted with. — Zd. di-danh-é I am taught, 
danh-ista the wisest. 

Fick 1°. 611, Pott W.i. 130, Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 569.—It is highly 
probable that 6)-o ‘find,’ 67-vo-s ‘cunning,’ pera-dya* perayedern (Hesych.) 
also belong here. The Zend words from the rt. da, which I formerly 
gave here, are, as Hiibschmann has kindly informed me, to be 
otherwise explained. We cannot get beyond a rt. dans, das, Zd. danh, 
(for h is the regular representative of s), which has survived in Skt., 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 275 


in as far as the Skt. das-rd-s ‘wondrous strong’ is rightly put here 
and identified with the Zd. dargra ‘wise.’ The Homeric dai-dpev 
which means sometimes ‘ warlike,’ and sometimes ‘ wise,’ belongs here. 
The rt. dak, which is plainly to be seen in doc-tu-s, doc-eo and with 
fresh expansion in the Zd. daksh ‘teach,’ 6:-dacx-w and disc-o (i for e 
from @) can only be compared on the assumption that varying deter- 
minatives were added to the rt. da. 


256. Root da da-i-w (Hom. fut. déccopar) divide, dai(r)-s, 
dai-Tv-s, dai-rn portion, meal, dai-rpd-s carver, 
dai-vu-yu. entertain, dai-vu-yar feast, dai-rv-yav 
(st. da:rrvpov) guest, datif-m tear in pieces, da- 
Té-o-at distribute, da-c-p0-s tribute. 

Skt. rt. day (ddje) divide, assign, take part in, con- 
sume, ddjd-s portion, inheritance; rt. da (da-mi, 
dja-mi) cut off, in comp. divide, dd-ti-s division, 
dda-trd-m share. 


Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 127, ii?. 940, Benf. ii. 204.— Original identity 
with the rt. 0 No. 270 is probable. (Cf. Fick i%. 607; Grassmann 
‘Wtb.’ p. 593.)— From the idea of distributing is developed that of a 
meal, cp. rapin rt. rex (No. 237), and the rt. dar (No. 261). Pott i. 
950 puts dai-yov with these words, according to which it would mean 
‘distributer,’ and compares “Icodairns im éeviwy 6 TWAotvray Hesych., 
while Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 167, Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 307 refer it to 
the rt. df (No. 269).— There isa remarkable parallel to the figurative 
use dup “Odvone Saierar jrop a 48, dSedaiypevov jrop v 320 in the Skt. 
ddj-a-té ‘he pities,’ a fact noticed in the Pet. Dict. With all the 
greater certainty may we with Déderlein ‘G1.’ 2468 put daterae with 
this root and not under No. 258.— Mangold (‘ Stud.’ vi. 403 ff.), on 
the strength of ¢9 puts dj-po-s here as ‘distributed land,’ and then 
‘the people.’ 

257. da-np (st. daep for daFep). — Skt. déva (st. dévar) 
and dévard-s — Lat. lévir (st. leviro).— AS. tdcor, 
OHG. zeihhur. —- ChSl. dévert, Lith. déveri-s 
brother-in-law. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Kuhn ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 328. — The guttural in the Teu- 
tonic words is to be explained by a pre-Teutonic gv that arose from 
the v. The primary form is datvar. On the prosody of the Gk. word 
see ‘Rhein. Mus.’ 1845 p. 253.—The meaning frater mariti is clearly 
the exclusive one in Skt., Gk., Lat., and Lith. In Skt. the word is de- 
rived from the rt. div ‘play,’ like ndé-nand-ar or nd-ndnd-ar ‘hus- 

Ee 


bD 


276 BOOK II. 


band’s sister’ from the rt. nand ‘to enjoy oneself’ (cp. note to Nos. 20 
and 124). It agrees with this that according to the Pet. Dict. 
‘especially the younger brother of one’s husband’ is so called. From 
the same root comes jévan = juven-i-s. Delbriick in ‘ Ztschr. f. d. 
Philol.’ i. 152 calls this ‘an Indogermanic idyll.’ 3 


258. Root daF da-i-w kindle (d€-8n-a, de-Sav-pévo-s), da-i-s 
firebrand, torch, éa-\6-s firebrand. ; 
Skt. du (du-nd-mi) burn, consume, torment, dava-s, 
dava-s, dava-thu-s burning, heat. 


Benf. i. 35, whose views as to the relation of other words besides 
are as unsound as Pott’s (i. 282) and Bopp’s (‘Gloss.’) comparison of 
the Skt. rt. dah, i,e. dagh. Cp. Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 311, and now 
Pott W. 1. 904. — pnpiov dedavpevav ‘E. M.’ p. 250, 18, Simon. Cei fr. 
exxxy. Schneidew., Hesych. dedavpévov' mepurepdcypevov, SaBet* KavOp, 
daBedrds* adds. When we consider that dafso-s according to Priscian’s 
express testimony (i. p. 17 H.) had in Aleman a F (kal xeipa mip re 
SaFwov), we are inclined to connect this word with dato. The frequent 
coupling of dniov with wip in Homer agrees with this, and the dat. 
dai’ (ev dai Avyp7) ‘ battle’ may well be connected too, seeing that we 
find such expressions as pdyn wddepuds re Sedjet (Y 18) (cp. ‘ bellum con- 
flare,’ ‘proelium exardescit,’ ON. brand-r ‘clang of swords’). But it is 
not so easy to reconcile with this the prominent meaning of dyjios, 
‘hostile,’ and of dnidrn(r)s, ‘strife, and of Sdyicw, ‘lay waste,’ 
(Déderl. ‘ Gloss.’ 2468), for which Max Miiller ‘Ztschr.’ v. 151 tries 

232 to find an etymology in the Ved. ddsd-s, ddsju-s, a designation of 
hostile peoples and spirits. We may, however, find a point of con- 
nexion in the meaning ‘ consuming,’ ‘ tormenting. This is specially 
suggested by the tragic use of ddios ‘miser,’ e.g. Soph. ‘Aj. 784 
& Saia Téxunooa. Here the word means ‘tormented.’— The same trans- 
ition of meaning takes place in Skt. in the case of the rt. du, and 
this shows that dv-n ‘woe,’ ‘need,’ dv-epd-s ‘ unfortunate,’ dvd-@ ‘ tor- 
ment,’ also belong to this root; cp. Lith. dovytz ‘torment.’ — Cp. Pott 
1”, 942. 

259. Root dad dai-dad-o-s, dat-déA-€0-s cunningly wrought, 
daidd\A-@ work cunningly, embellish, daidad-pya 


a work of art.— Lat. dol-d-re carve, dold-bra, 
dol-iu-m — ChSl. deltiva dolium. 


Benf. i. 99, ii. 339, Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 32 f., Diefenbach ‘ Vgl. Wtb.’ 11. 
667.—For the diphthongal reduplication compare mat-ra\A-o, pat-pa-o. 
—Pictet ii. 126 takes the Skt. dar ‘split’ (No. 267) as the root. Cp. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. ae yi 


Fick 1°. 617.—The connexion of the Lith. datl-as ‘delicate,’ did oe 


mould delicately,’ is contested by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Vocal.’ 11. 486. St Laem 


260. Root dau dép-vyn-pi, dap-d-w, dapd¢-w tame, over- 
power, ddp-ap (st. dapapr) wife, dau-ddy-s steer, 
-dauo-s in comp. taming, d-du7(7)-s untamed, 
dud-s slave. 

Skt. rt. dam (dam-ja-mi, also damd-ja-mi, daman- 
ja-mi) am tame, tame, part. dam-t-ta-s domitus, 
-dama-s in comp. taming, dam-ana-s domitor, 
dam-ja-s young steer. 

Lat. dom-a-re, dom-i-tu-s, dom-i-tor, dom-inu-s. 

Goth. ga-tam-jan dapav, OHG. zam-dn I tame, zam 
tame. 

Cymr. dof tame, dofi to tame, OCymr. dometic tamed ; 
Olx. dam steer. 

Bopp ‘GIl.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 180, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ i. 402, Z?. 1057, 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 329. — The root is related to the rt. da ‘ bind’ (No. 
264) and den (No. 265). For Sayuap Hesych. has a by-form Sdpopri-s 
(doubtless Aeolic) yurx7.—We must recognize in dduap and Sapddy-s the 
idea of overpowering which is prominent also in rapOévos aduns. The 
Homeric dye-s is the passive to the Lat. dominu-s. For this reason 
and on account of the Skt. dam-ana-s I prefer the above account of 
dominu-s to that given by Lange (‘ Jahn’s Jahrb.’ vol. 68 p. 41), who 
takes dominu-s to be the ‘ giver’ (rt. da, do).— Ebel (‘ Beitr.’ ii. 160) 
and Stokes (‘ Beitr.’ vii. 14) connect the Ir. fo-daimim ‘patior :’ perf. 
depon. damair ‘passus est.’ Perhaps also the Cymr. dawf ‘gener,’ 
OCymr. dauu ‘ cliens’ (for dém-, Z?. 1055) belong here. 

261. Root dan, den, dé7-7T-@ dissever, rend, dam-dyn ex- 
pense, ddé7-avo-s extravagant, dayirns liberal. — 
deim-vo-y meal. 

Skt. da-p-aja-mi causative from da divide, No. 256. 

Lat. dap-s meal, sacrificial feast, dap-tnare serve up 
on table. 

AS. tiber, tifer, OHG. zébar, ON. tafn victima, MHG. 

un-ge-zib-ele vermin, properly ‘not fit to be offered.’ 

Benf. 11. 204, Fick 1°. 610.—The shorter root is No. 256; it has an 233 
added a, cp. Spar-érn-s (No. 272) and dorpdmre (No. 205). We are re- 
minded of the rt. da ‘ give, which also has in Skt. the causative form 
da-p-aja-mi. But the nouns given under No. 256 make it advisable 
to start from the idea of ‘ dividing,’ which again gives an easier expla- 


278 BOOK II. 


nation of the physical meaning of ddrro, xatadarrw ‘tear,’ ‘rend.’ 
katraddanretar Arop m 92, like Salera: j#rop. On the formation of dayAns 
Lobeck ‘Proleg.’ 114 cp. dSerds Secdds Hesych. and Aurapis by the side 
of Auapdss. — deinvo-v (Benf. ii. 271) from derwo-v, which would corre- 
spond to the form dapinu-m which we may assume to account for 
dap-inare (Plaut.); clearly its proper meaning, like that of dap-s, is 
distributio (cp. €oriacis). Cp. Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 397.— dén-as too 
along with déracrpoy from Semdfew ‘ to be in one’s cups’ is doubtless 
related. The Homeric phrase Séras civov seems properly to mean a 
‘measure’ of wine, and the transition of the word from this meaning 
to that of vessel is an easy one. Accordingly we may assume demas 
to have had the same meaning with reference to drink as dais and the 
Lat. dap-s with reference to food, i.e. a portion. 


262. Root dapée €-dpad-o-v, dapO-dv-m sleep. — Skt. dra 
(dra-mi, draja-mt) sleep, ni-dra& go to sleep. — Lat. 
dor-m-i-o. — ChSl. dré-m-a-ti dormire. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 135, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 116.— On the secondary 
6 and m see pp. 63 and 65. It is to be remarked that Homer knows 
only the aorist ¢-dpa0-0-v, karéSpabov, mapédpabov, and only in this form, 
and that the present (xaraSapédavw) does not occur till Plato (‘Gk. Verb’ 
pp. 182 and 284). 


263. dacv-s thick, décos thicket, dactdvm make thick, 
rough, davad-s thickly overgrown, AavaAi-s. 
Lat. densu-s, densere, densare. 


Pott i4. 139, ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 406, where davdd-s is rightly held to be 
from dacv-Ad-s and explained by “H-6v-Ao-s from 75v-s, 30 mayv-dd-s from 
maxv-s. Pott conjectures that, with a different suffix, "Emi-Sav-po-s 
stands for ’Em-dacv-po-s, and accordingly denotes ‘a place overgrown 
with a thicket, and compares the proper name OpdvAdos for OpaovAXos. 
Benf. 11. 200. Cp. dac-xév* Sacd, Sav-réradov’ rohibvAdoy (Hesych.).— 
But the Lat. dus-mu-s without doubt belongs here, Paul. ‘ Ep.’ 67 
‘dusmo in loco apud Livium significat dumosum vel squalidum.’ 
dus-mu-s must be for dens-imu-s (cp. dvO-.yo-s), dii-mu-s, dii-metu-m 
always keep the further meaning ‘bushes.’ So Déoderlein ‘Syn. u. 
Et.’ vi. 108. Should we be right in adding the Messapian names 
Dasumiu-s, Ad¢iwo-s, Dasiu-s (Mommsen ‘ Unterit. D.’ 72), which might 
have the same meaning as AaovAd\wos which Benseler translates by 
‘Ruge’ ? 


263 b. -d« towards, ofkév-de homewards. —Zd, da, vaé¢- 
men-da homewards. — Lat. -do in en-do, in-du. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 279 


Goth. du, AS. t6, OHG. zuo, za, ze, zt to (Germ. 
zu). —ChSl. do up to, Lith. prefix da. 


Pott i?. 287, Miklosich ‘Lex.,’ Ebel ‘Beitr.’ i. 312, Fick 1°. 99, 
Scherer 304, where the Lat. de (the Osc. dat) is also referred to this 
stem. In the Arcadian 6vp-da° ¢éw (Hesych.) i.e. Avpa¢e the old a is re- 
tained in the place of the ¢, in the Aeol. -d&s (so too in the Homeric | 
dAdv-dis) it is weakened toe and as is added (cp. éé, duis). —To the 234 
Lat. en-do in-du correspond the Oly. ind- in indiumm ‘in me,’ etc. 


(Z?. 627). 


264. Root de dé-a, di-dy-i bind, dé-ov-s a binding, de-77 
bundle, de-c-p6-s band, fetter, xp7-de-pvo-v, dia- 
6n-pa fillet. 

Skt. da (dja-mi) bind, da-man band, cord, da-ma& 
band. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Benf. ii. 200, Schweizer ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 342, Pott W.1.129.— 
The comparison of doddo-s ‘ slave,’ which is often connected with the 
Skt. ddsa-s of like meaning and explained to be from doavado-s (cp. 
No. 263) seems to me questionable especially on account of the o 
which is foreign to this root.—On 6deo-rdrn-s cp. No. 377.—It has 
long ago been recognized that dei ‘to be obliged’ is connected with 
dev ‘to bind. Hence the construction with the acc. But denoec 
points to the loss of a consonant and the related Homero-Aeolic deve 
(Seunow) ‘want’ makes it likely that this consonant was fF (Sauppe 
‘Gott. Prooem.’ 1870 p. 25). Since the Skt. das (dds-ja-mt) like S<ioa 
means ‘suffer want,’ and vi-das ‘to be wanting,’ ‘fail, it is possible 
that we ought to regard da-vand da-s as expansions of da, Cp. Fick 
are 1.08. 


264b. Root ded look, glance at, dev-diANwy és ExacTov 
(/ 180) looking. at each one separately, Dor. 84A«- 
cOat, defAeo Oat wish. 
Skt. dar (dri-jd-té) consider, d-dara-s consideration, 
attention. 
Goth. ga-tild-n attain, get, OHG. zil aim (Germ. 
Ziel). 

Fick 1°. 617, Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii. 347.—On the intensive formation 
dev-SidAew cp. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 212. — dyrovra tab. Heracl. i. 146, ai xa 
deiAnrat Locrian (Allen ‘ Stud.’ iii. 273). Cp. Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 150. By 
the help of the connecting notion ‘look towards something’ may be 
brought together the meanings ‘look,’ ‘aim,’ ‘wish.’— Cp. No. 271. 


235 


280 BOOK II. 


265. Root Seu déu-w build, déu-as build, shape, ddpuo-s 

building, room, 66, 6@-pa house. 

Skt. dam-d-s, dam (Ved.) house, dém-pati-s house- 
holder. — Zend dem-a dwelling. 

Lat. domu-s, domes-ticu-s, domi-ciliu-m, Domi-tiu-s (%). 

AS. timber, OHG. zimbar lignum, aedificium, Goth. 
timrjan olKodopelv. 

ChSl. domt% house, Lith. ndma-s house (2). 

Olr. aur-dam, er-dam prodomus (Z*. 7). 

Pott i. 2, 185, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 314, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 402.— The 
rt. dam is an expansion of da ‘bind’ (No. 264).—On the Lith. ndéma-s 
Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 117. — dom-es-ticu-s seems to proceed from a neuter 
stem domes standing on the same line as déuas (cp. genes nom. genus), 
and it would be developed from it like aqua-ticu-s, silva-ticu-s from 
their primitives. But we must remember szlves-tri-s, campes-tri-s, 
modes-tu-s. — domi-cil-iu-m is compounded with the rt. cel (celare) 
mentioned under No. 30 (Vossius ‘ Et.’ ‘domicolium ’).—The Slavonic 
words, and perhaps also the Skt. démi-na-s ‘ belonging to the house,’ 
point to a w-stem such as occurs in the Lat. domi-s, ete. 


266. deévd-s, deét-repd-s on the right, mepi-dé£0-s, augi- 

6€£10-s ambidexter. 

Skt. déksh-ina-s on the right, to the south. [Hence 
Deccan.| — Zd. dashina on the right. 

Lat. dexter (st. dextero), superl. dex-timu-s. 

Goth. taths-va, taths-vé dexter, OHG. zésawd deéca, 
OHG. adj. zéso gen. zéswes on the right. 

ChSl. destnd% dexter, Lith. desziné dextera. 

Olr. dess on the right, to the south, Cymr. deheu. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. 11. 2, 414, Schleicher ‘Ksl.’ 116, ete.— The root 
I hold to be the dex that 1s discussed at No. 11, which has here an 
added s (cp. p. 64). The lengthened rt. daksh means in Skt. ‘to 
satisfy,’ ‘suit,’ déksh-a-s ‘suitable, ‘capable.’ —Cymr. deheu (Z?. 47, 
129) shows the same suffix as the Goth. tathsva. 


267. Root dep dép-w (deipw, Saipw aor. éddépny) flay, 
dép-os, dop-d, dép-wa skin, dép-rpo-v skin of the 
intestines, déppi-s leathern covering. 

Skt. dar (dr-za-mi) burst, burst open, tear asunder, 
dr-ti-s leather bottle, bladder, @di-a-s rent, split. 
— Zd. dar cut. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 281 


Goth. ga-tatr-a xaradvo, OHG. ziru, far-ziru de- 
struo. 

ChSl. der-q (inf. dra-ti), Lith. dir-iv flay. 

Corn. darn piece, pl. darnow frusta (Z?. 286). 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 317, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 402, Schleicher 
‘Ksl.’ 116, Benf. ii. 228, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 329.— From the physical 
meaning split, which is most prominent in the Skt. d-dar (d-drt-ja 
‘open-handed,’ cp. Ir. derna ‘the palm of the hand,’ Corm.) comes, as 
Fick 1°. 615 conjectures, the Arcad. ddp-t-s (o7ayn ‘span’ Hesych.), to 
which, in that case, would belong also Sapo-v' madauorn, 6pOddepov 
(Hultsch ‘ Metrologie’ 31).— Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ i112. 380 connects d7p-t-s 
‘strife,’ ‘struggle’ (Snpicavro, Sypidacba) as well, Corssen i’. 506 the 
Lat. diru-s, of which I am not convinced. 


267 b. decpy, déom neck, mountain ridge, de:pd-s' Addos 
(Hesych.), decpa(d)-s mountain ridge, precipice. 
— Lat. dorsus, dorsu-m.— Olr. druim back. 


Pauli ‘ Korpertheile’ p.12, cp. Fick i°. 616.—I have shown (‘Studien’ 
i. 1, 256) how the Gk. word by its 7 which is so remarkable in Attic, 
and by the Aeol. déppa, Dor. dnpas points to the loss of a consonant 
before the a.— This comparison has been subjected to a vigorous 
attack by Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr. xxi. 537. The only objection of any 
weight is that made to the retention of the s in dor-swm as compared 
with terra, ferre etc., for tersa, ferse. Perhaps this anomaly is to be 
explained by the fact that the word got mixed up with dérsum=dé- 
(v)orsum ‘ downwards’ (C.I. L. 199, 9, 20). The change of g to 6 is 
too rare to give any support to Leo Meyer’s comparison of depy with 
the Skt. griva ‘back of the neck.’ — The Ir. druim, more accurately 
druimm, contains a stem drosmen (gen. sing. drommo, acc. pl. dromand 
Z?, 268). 

268. Root ot df-erOar hasten, scare, df-ov (X 251) ran. 236 
— dt-vo-s eddy, dtv-a, divé-w, Sived-w swing. 
Skt. di, dt (di-ja-mi) hurry, fly, pari-di fly round, 
stream round. 
Olr. déan celer, déne celeritas. 

Fick 1°. 621, who also compares the Lett. di-t ‘dance.’ Perhaps, too, 
diepd-s belongs here, which, especially in the connexion diep@ modi « 43, 
can hardly mean anything but ‘runaway.’ Otherwise Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xix. 425.—The recently-discovered Corinthian Afewwias (‘ Stud.’ viii. 
465) forbids us to connect the words for ‘fearing’ (Seid:-a, déos), 


269. Root o1, dif d€-a-rT0, do-d-coca-To seemed, dia-do-s, 


282 BOOK IT. 


déeXo-s, OnAo-s clear, st. Av* nom. Zev-s, di-o-s 
heavenly, év-di-o-s at midday, «v-d/-a clear sky, 
Atéyn. 

Skt. di (di-di, 38rd pl. pres. di-dja-ti) appear, shine, 
dé-na-s day, a-djd to-day, div shine, play, div 
brightness, clearness, sky, djO nom. djdu-s sky, 
Sky-god, day, div-jd-s heavenly, div-dm, div- 
asa-s day, dévd-s God.—Zd. div shine, daéva 
demon. 

Lat. Diov-i-s, deu-s, divu-s, sub dio, Diana, die-s, bi- 
du-u-m, nu-diu-s, inter-diu, nun-dinae. 

“ON. téivar Gods, heroes, AS. Tives-ddig Tuesday, 
OHG. Zio. 

Lith. déva-s God, dénd day. — ChSl. dt-nt (m.) day, 
di-ni-si to-day. 

Cymr. diw, dyw day, he-diw to-day, duw God, 
OCymr. duiutit deitas; Ir. die day, in-diu to- 
day, déa God. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Pott W. i. 913 ff., Benf. ii. 207, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 402, 
Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 2, Ebel ‘Beitr.’ 11. 161, Fick 1°. 620. — Owing 
to the instability of the v in Gk. and Lat. it is hard to decide which 
forms come from the shorter rt. di, and which from the longer dzv. 
On dé€aro (¢ 242) and doaccaro cp. below p. 573, on Zev’-s p. 616.— 
did-Aas Sydas, Siadov havepdv, deedov SHAov, SdeAov Siddnrov (Hesych.) are 
to be referred partly to &f, partly to a strengthened daw (Skt. dév 
‘shine’) and leave no doubt as to the origin of 457\0-s, which even in 
Doric was dros and not dados (Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 151). So, too, eddeledos, 
in spite of Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’ ii. 191 and Diintzer’s ‘ beautiful in the 
evening’ (abendschin) ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 10, must be only another form 
for evdnhos. —Greek is not entirely without any of the words for ‘day’ 
springing from this root. Macrob. ‘ Saturn.’ i. 15 ‘ Cretenses Sia rhv 
nuépav vocant,’ dydd-810-v* Ovoia TeAovpern Onoei (Hesych.). Cp. Mor. 
Schmidt on this passage, Pott 11%, 805, W. i. 1064. In the Lat. dié-s 
(cp. Corssen ii% 458, 1%. 380 f.) the v has dropped out, but it is 
clearly to be seen in nu-dius and bi-duu-m (for bi-div-u-m). On nii- 
dius Fleckeisen ‘ Jahrb.’ 1867 p. 627.—On Atovn Diana Benf. ‘ Or. 
u. Occ.’ i. 280.— The existence of a rt. div has been altogether denied 
by Havet ‘Mém.’ ii, 177, who prefers to consider that from di was 
formed a noun-stem di-wu, dj-w underlying the remaining formations. 
At any rate no examples are to be quoted of the verbal rt. div in 

237 Skt. with the meaning ‘shine.’ But can dévd-s, which Max Miiller 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 283 


‘Lect.’ 11°. 498 translates by ‘brilliant, be anything but a primary 
formation? So too Lindner ‘ Altind. Nominalbildung’ pp. 33, 160 
takes the word. Otherwise Pet. Dict.— From the shorter rt. d? we get 
again the Skt. dip ‘shine, and from djw djut with like meaning. — The 
OCymr. duiutit ‘deitas’ (Z’. 844) became later duwdid; so too duw 
‘God’ stands for *duiw, and corresponds like the Ir. dia ‘God’ (voc. 
a dé Z?. 225) to the Skt. dévd-s. Cymr. diw, Ir. die ‘day’ is the 
original dzv-, with a suffix which it is hard to determine. Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 329 adds the Oly. denus ‘spatium temporis,’ tré-denus 
‘triduum ’ (Z*. 788). 

270. Root d0 di-dw-ui give, do-THp, dw-THp giver, dé-s, 

66-T1-s, 66-c1-¢ gift, 66-po-v present. 

Skt. da (dé-da-mi) give, da-ta (st. dd-tar) giver, da- 
na-m, da-man gift.—Zd. dd give, dd-tar, dd-ta 
giver, dd-na (n.) a giving, dd-thra (n.) a present. 

Lat. da-re, dator, dé-s (st. doti), dd-nu-m. 

ChSl. da-mt, Lith. dii-mi, dti-du give, dii-ti-s, du- 
ni-s gift, ChSl. da-r% present, da-nit yield, tax. 

Bopp ‘GI.’ Pott W. i. 105, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 115, Fick 1°. 609.— 
The a-sound has survived in 8d-vos ‘loan’ (ddvesov, Savei{w) and ddvas ° 
pepidas Kapvorvo (Hesych.) under the protection of the v; cp. old Lat. 
dan-unt by the side of dant.— On the other hand the o-sound appears 
in the Lat. ce-do ‘ give here’ (pl. cette), sacer-dd(t)-s, dd-(ti)s, do-nu-m. 
As regards the w in the old Lat. forms du-int, du-am, ad-du-é-s 
(Paul ‘ Epit.’ 27), du-i-to-r (Plin. ‘H. N’ xxi. 3 in an old law); 
either, as I assumed (‘ Tempora u. Modi’ p. 261) it arose from 0, so 
that du-int=do-iev, du-a-m=66-, or these forms come from a by- 
root du. So Fick ut supra. Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ i?. 364, ‘ Nachtr.’ 
239. Cp. Schoell ‘xii. tabb.’ 82. In any case the Umbr. pur-tuv-itu, 
pur-dov-itw (Aufr. u. Kirchh. ii. 171) point to a stem dov which 
takes its place with the Lith. di, but perhaps too with the ChSl. da- 
va-ti ‘give. — The OlIr. dén (Z?. 238) does not agree well in its 
meaning ‘art,’ ‘ gift’ with this root, and is referred by Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ 
vili. 329 to No. 255 c. 


271. d6d0-s cunning, déAcap bait. 
Skt. d-dard-s allurement. 
Lat. dolu-s, Ose. abl. dolu-d (tab. Bant.). 
ON. idl dolus, fraus, OHG. zd/a ambush, wiles. 
Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 402, Benf. 11. 226, Pott W. ii. 1, 326.— The re- 


lationship of dddo0s and d€Aeap is shown by p 252 ix@vor rots driyoe 
ddéAov Kara elOara BaAdXov. The Teutonic words show dolu-s to be a 


284. BOOK IT. 


word of great antiquity, by no means borrowed from the Gk. — Cp. 
No. 264 b. On the Aeol. Bryjp=dedeap cp. p. 483. 


272. Root dpa dmo-dpad-var run away, di-dpd-cK-@ run, 
dpa-c-p06-s flight, ¢-dpa-c-ro-s not to be escaped. 
Skt. dra (dra-mi) run, hasten, intens. dar-i-drda. 

Bopp ‘G1.’ Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 320, Pott W. i. 133, Fick 1°. 618.— 

238 Spam-éryn-s and dpd-r-ov (Lentz ‘ Herodian’ i. 34, 14) come from the 

root with an added p (cp. the Skt. causal dra-pa-ja-mi and above p. 

60). — The Goth. tru-d-a, OHG. tri-t-u ‘tread, ON. trd-dha ‘ves- 
tigium’ agree in sound with this root, but not in meaning. 


273. Root dpa dpdé-@ do, dpa-ya act, Hom. dpy-o-rHp 
workman, servant, dpy-c-7o-cvvn skill in serv- 
ing, dpa-v-os deed, work. 

Lith. dar-av% make, do. 


Pott W.i. 136, ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 33, where other possibly related words 
are discussed, Fick i°. 619. — The Lith. dér-b-a-s ‘work,’ along with 
dir-b-u ‘I work,’ could at most be regarded as a further expansion of 
this root.—Is it possible that this root and the preceding one are 
one? mpdcow too (No. 358) is originally a verb of motion; the Skt. 
Kar ‘run’ and kar ‘do’. (No. 72), tar ‘pass over’ and réd-os redeiv 
(No. 238) spring in each case from a single source. In Homer the 
word has only the meaning of ‘busy performance.’ The Homeric 
éAryo-Spav-ewv (cp. ddtynmedéwv) ‘powerless’ is remarkable—it may 
mean really ‘hardly moving oneself.’.— The OlIr. dernaim ‘facio’ 
(Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 211) can hardly belong here; it follows the 
second conj. (= Lat. first conj.) and seems to belong to derna ‘ the 
palm of the hand’ (cp. Fick i°. 106). (It is true though that the gen. 
sg. of derna is dernann.) The form jfodera, however (Z?. 748), has 
not yet been sufficiently explained. 


274. Root dpau €-dpap-o-v I ran (pf. d€-dpop-a), dpopo-s 

a running, dpopu-ev-s a runner. 
Skt. dram drém-d-mi run hither and thither, wander. 
Benf. 11. 229.— Bopp ‘Vergl. Gr.’ 1. 233 connects the Gk. dpay with 
the much commoner Skt. dru (drdv-d-mt) ‘ run,’ regarding the m as a 
hardening of the v. But this change is one that cannot. be shown to 
have occurred before the separation of the languages. dpa-p is an 


expansion of the shorter rt. dpa (No. 272). Cp. Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 
295, Pott W. ii. 2, 189. 


275. Spd-s tree, oak, dpv-yd (pl.), dpv-ud-s wood, dpv- 
Topo-s wood-cutter, dév-dpe-o-v (dévdpo-v) tree, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 285 


dpia (pl.) thicket, dépu (pl. Soipa, dovpara) wood, 
beam, shaft, spear, dovp-e.o-s, dovpdr-€o-s wooden. 

Skt. dru-s wood, tree, dru-ma-s tree, daru log of 
wood, a kind of pine, da@ru-nd-s hard.— Zd. dru 
(n.) déuru (n.) wood, spear. 

Goth. triw tree, triv-ein-s EvAwvos, OS. trto trabs, 
lignum, arbor, Engl. tree. 

ChSl. drévo tree, dréva (pl.) sticks. — Lith. derva 
pitch-wood. 

OIr. daur quercus, daurde quernus, derucc glans; 
Cymr. derwen quercus. 

Bopp ‘GL.’ Benf. 1. 96 ff., Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 116, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 
554, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 1. 160, especially Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 84 ff.—The 
derivatives and compounds of épi-s leave no doubt that with the 
Greeks as well as with the other nations the original meaning was 
not ‘oak’ but ‘tree’ (Schol. A 86). We may compare besides ddpvA-o-s 239 
(7 Spds b7d Maxeddvwy Hesych.) and the proper names Api-s, Apvas, 
Apvoy, Apiov. Perhaps Awpi-s too really meant ‘ wood-land,’ ‘ forest- 
land,’ so that the Awpreis would correspond to the German ‘ Holsaten.’ 
The as in yovia by the side of yévv.— dév-dpe-ov (Hom.), reduplicated 
like rev-Opn-dav, mepu-ppy-deov (Fritzsche ‘Stud. vi. 315), is brought 
under this head by Déderlein also (‘ Gloss.’ 226), who compares dev- 
Spu-dgew (Hesych., Eustath.) i.e. ‘to hide oneself behind a tree,’ ‘ lie 
in wait,’ and also tzo-dev-dpu-dfew* &€& adavois émupaiverba (Hes.). 
Ahrens ‘ Apis und seine Sippe’ Hannover 1866.—The Olr. gen. daro 
comes from a stem daru, the gen. darach, from a stem expanded by a 
guttural, added to this as to many other stems whose last consonant 
is an 7, and the nom. to this (afterwards the only one in use) is dazr, 
like cathir, etc. (Z?. 7, 259, 295). Here belongs also the OGall. 
Druid-es (Caes.), Ir. drui, n. pl. druid, Cymr. derwydd (Z*. 7, 255), 
a stem like the Gk. dpvad-. 

276. See No. 268. 


277. dvo, dvw, dotot two, di- in comp., dis for dF-/s twice, 
dev-rTepo-s the second, doi% doubt, d:-é between, 
apart (in compounds), di-ya, di-xOdé two ways, 
di-0c6-s double, dué-dexa, d6-deKa. 

Skt. st. dud, dva, nom. acc. dudu two, dvi- in comp., 
dvis twice, dvi-tija-s the second, dva-jé-s twofold, 
vi- (in comp.) apart. —Zd. dva two, bi- two in 
comp., bi-tya the second. 


240 


286 BOOK II. 


Lat. duo, bi- (for dvi) in comp., bis, dis- bi-ni, du- 
plex, du-b-iu-s. — Umbr. du-r duo. 

Goth. tvai, f. tvds, n. tua, OHG. zer- zar- apart 
(Germ. zer-), Goth. vi-thra contra, tvis-stass d1Xx0- 
oTacia. 

ChSl. dva, dtiva, Lith. du, fem. dvi two, dveji two, 
by twos. . 

Olr. dd, f. dé two; Cymr. dow (later deu, dau), f. 
duit; in comp. Ir. dé-, Cymr. duy-. | 

Bopp ‘Vergl. Gr.’ i. 63, 94, Pott 1’. 128, etc. — Simultaneously 
Benfey ‘das Indogerm. Thema des Zahlworts “zwei” ist du’ Gott. 1876, 
and L. Havet (‘ Mém.’ ii. 180) have developed the idea that we ought 
to start with the st. du. For this speak also the Gk. forms dv-oi(y) 
(Thue. viii. 101, also Doric) and 6t-eoox (said to be Aeolic). I regard 
du-o and du-t as expanded stems. — dev-repo-s arose by metathesis 
from dva-tara-s (cp. evpt-s=Skt. vari), di006-s from 8Fi-rjo-s, which 
corresponds to the Skt. dvi-tija-s for dvi-tja-s. Cp. however Joh. 
Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.’ xvi. 437.— Both the prefixal and the prepositional 
use of da, are to be explained by the idea ‘between’ (Curtius 
‘Gk. Grammar’ § 458). Cp. p. 37. do-wi I now with Fick i%. 
627 regard as a correlative of the Skt. dvajd (i.e. dva-ja)=ChSI1. 
dvoj, Lith. dveji.—The Keltic forms come from a m. *dva@ f. *dvazt in 
comp. dvat-. 

278. dvo- mis-, duvc-pevys ill-disposed. 

Skt. dus- dur- mis-, dur-mands dvo-pevys.—Zd. 
dush, dus-manaivh. 

Goth. tus-, tuz (tuz-vérjan to doubt), ON. tor-, OHG. 
zur-, NHG. zer- amiss. 

Olr. du-, do- mis- (do-chruth inhonestus, cruth 
forma). 

Bopp ‘G1, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 403, Pott W. i. 2, 417.—-We must 
allow connexion with the Skt. dush ‘destroy,’ dvish ‘hate’ (No. 290), 
Zd. dush-i-ti ‘ misery. —In Irish aspiration has taken place after du, 
in spite of the original final consonant, on the analogy of the com- 
pounds with so- (so-chruth ‘honestus’) and because in the case of the 
large majority of first members (in compounds) ending in a vowel, 
the second member is aspirated. 

279. Root €6 €d-a, €c-0-w, éc-Oi-w eat, €d-wd-4, €d-n-Tv-s, 
€0-e-o-a, €(0-ap food. 

Skt. dd-mi eat, dd-ana-m, dd-man, dn-na-m food, 
ad-a-ka-s eating, dd-jd-s eatable. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 287 


Lat. ed-o (3 sing. es-t), ed-d-x, ésu-s, ésti-ri-o, es-ca. 

Goth. zt-a, OHG. zz-u eat. 

ChSl. ja-mt, also &-mt (inf. jas-ti, és-ti) eat, yad-t 
cibus, Lith. éd-mi, éd-u devour, éd-i-s food, meal, 
éd-ika-s glutton. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iv. 280, Benf.i. 246, etc. —Cp. ddov-s (No. 289), 
on 00a, ecbio,‘Gk. Verb’ p.501, es-ca for ed-ca. In the suffix too we find 
_a remarkable resemblance between the Skt. ad-aka-s, the Lat. ed-daa, 
and the Lith. ¢d-ika-s. Otherwise Corssen ii?. 257. I see no reason 
for separating «?5-ap from this root, as is proposed by Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xil. 341. In dve-t-ap too there appears an « before the suffix -apr, and 
this « seems to have been forced into the preceding syllable in eiSap. 
It is probable therefore that it is an expansion of *ad-ta, cp. meipap 
from the rt. wep.— Perhaps the Lat. ad-or ‘spelt’ belongs here, in 
which case it would be a connexion of the AS. at-a, Eng. oat, the 
vowel of which points to an older e, and of the Goth. at-isk-s ‘seed ;’ 
so Pictet 1. 259, who adduces the Skt. dn-na-m for ad-na-m ‘food,’ 
‘corn,’ as an example of this change of meaning. Cp. note to No. 304, 
and with respect to ddvvy No. 284.— It is probable that the rt. ad is 
to be found in the Olr. cini estar ‘etsi non edit’ (s- fut. dep. Z?. 468), 
cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vii. 59, Windisch ibid. viii. 6. 

280. Root €d sit. — ef-oa I seated, efouar, ifopar seat 
myself, ifm I seat, €d-os, €d-pa a seat, iSpv-o I 
seat, settle. 

Skt. sad (sid-d-mi) sit, sdid-ayjami I seat, place, 
sdd-as a seat, sitting. —Zd. had sit, hadh-is a 
seat, dwelling-place. 

Lat. sed-e-o0, sid-o, sel-la (for sed-la), séd-é-s, séd-are, 
sol-iu-m. 

Goth. sit-a, OHG. sizzu, Goth. sit-l-s, OHG. sézal 
(sedile), OHG. satul (sella), Goth. sat-jan, OHG. 
sezzan seat, place (Germ. setzen). 

ChSl. sés-t¢ (for séd-ti) 1 p. s. sed-@ consido, sad-i-ti 
plantare, sed-lo saddle, Lith. séd-mi, séd-gu sit, 
sod-in-w seat, place, plant. 

Olr. do-saidi-siu sedes (M1. 209), pret. endz remi-said 
ejus qui praesidebat (50°), dep. ro sazdestar sedit, 241 
in-sddaim jacio, suide seat; Cymr. seddu sit. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iv. 677, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 117, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 
~ 422, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 165.—The o is preserved in the form cé6-as 


288 BOOK II. 


(xa6éSpas Hesych.). Remarkable too is the conformity of the Lat. 
sella, i. e. sed-la, and Hesychius’s é\\d* xaédpa, which also means 16 év 
Awdavy iepdv (cp. Hesych. s. v. éAdd), no doubt in the sense of os, 
‘abode of the gods.’ Cp. Giese ‘ iib. den Aeol. D.’ 249.— On the in i6- 
pv-o, which is compared by Benfey and Fick 1°. 493 to the assumed 
Skt. sad-ru-s ‘resting’ (not in the Pet. Dict.) and io, see below p. 711. 
Another present-form from the rt. é5 occurs in W-w-e-v" exabecero 
(Hesych.), which accordingly answers to €6-vu-p, cp. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 111. 
—On soliu-m Corssen i®, 487 expresses a different view. — In Irish the 
pres in use with the meaning sedere is sadia, while the trans. -sédaim 
(cp. also con-sédu ‘compono’ Z?. 434) contains the causative stem 
sadaja. Olr. sdl ‘heel,’ Cymr. sodlew ‘ calces’ (‘ Beitr.’ viii. 428) per- 
haps belongs to No. 281. 

281. Root €3 go. — 66-6-s way, 66-i-rn-s traveller, 6d-«v-o 
travel, 66-6-s (ovdd-s) threshold, otd-as, €6-a-os 
ground, 

Skt. sad, d-sad attain to, reach, ud-sad go out, dis- 
appear. 

Lat. sol-u-m, sol-ea. 
ChSl. chod-% incessus, chod-i-ti ire, Std-% profectus. 
Bopp ‘Gl.’ Benf. 1. 442 f., Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 117, Pott W. iv. 712, 
Fick i°. 493.—66é-s is properly ‘tread,’ ‘that on which one treads,’ 
ovdas: rt. 5 = wédov (No. 291): wed. Cp. page 114. On the suffix 
of ¢-a-os (cp. ép-ed€es* érrimedov, ramewvdv, yayai Hesych.) Jahn’s ‘ Jahrb.’ — 
vol. 69 p. 95.—solum shows such close agreement with this root that 
we cannot separate it; the 7 is as in soltu-m (No. 280), whether by 
assimilation from dl or directly from d.  sdle-a ‘ sole’ must also be put 
here since sddu-m itself means ‘sole’ as well Cp. No. 560. Other- 
wise Corssen 1°. 486, where the above irrefragable analogies for the 
transition to the ideas of that which is trodden on and ground or site 
(cp. too Bd-o-s, Bd-Opo-v) are ignored. At all events we have in 
séd-ulu-s a Latin representative of this root with the d preserved 
(cp. beb-ulu-s, trem-ulu-s), though here the éis strange. In No. 273 
we saw a similar instance of the idea of busy service developed from 
averbum movendi. Thesame origin is conjectured by Bernhardt ‘ Gr. 
Etymologien’ (Wiesbaden 1862) p. 20 and Pott ii. 788 for the Gk. 
do¢o-s, imnpérns, akddovbos, in which case the word would stand for 
a-od-jo-s ‘fellow traveller’ (cp. dkédovbos, dradés, gasinthja). — Roth 
‘Ztschr.’ xix. 214 comes to a totally different conclusion about the words 
here adduced. He assumes (cp. Pet. Dict.) only a rt. sad (No. 280), and 
refers ovdus, d5¢s and édados to No. 280, and conjectures for 68d-s a rt. 
sadh, which occurs most clearly in sddh-d-s ‘direct,’ so that 666s would 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. | 289 


properly mean ‘ straight line, ‘direction.’ But I know of no example 
of the appearance of 6 for 6 on account of an initial aspirate. 


282. Root id, Fid efd-o-v I saw, e€id-o-war appear, oid-a 
know, idéa, «id-os species, e/d-@do-y image, 
"A-idn-s, to-Twp (st. forop) knowing, a witness, 242 
ictop-é-m inquire, ié-pi-s knowing, (vd-dd\dAopau 
appear. — Ud-vy-s' eidds, Eumreipos (Hesych.). 

Skt. vid (véd-mi, pf. ved-a) know, vind-a-mi find, 
veda-s the scriptures, vid-ja knowledge, teaching. 

Lat. vid-eo, visu-s, vis-o, Umbr. virs-e-to = visus 
(part.), Lat. vi-tru-m. 

Goth. vait of8a, un-vit-i ignorance (unwittingness), 
vit-an Tnpelv, far-vait-l Oéarpov, OHG. wizan, 
(Germ. wissen) know, gi-wizo witness, ON. vit-r-s 
wise. 

ChSl. vid-é-ti see, véd-é-ti know, Lith. véid-a-s facies, 
vyzd-t-s eye-ball, véizd-mi see, OPr. waidimai 
scimus. 

Oly. ad-fiadat narrant, dep. pret. ro fetar scio, fut. 
ro fessur sciam, finnaim cognosco, ftad (c. dat.). 
coram. 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott W. iv. 613 ff, Benf. i. 369 f., Grassmann ‘ Wtb,’ 
1270, 1274. — The idea of physical perception is clearly seen in the 
different families of speech ; the more metaphysical idea of ‘ knowing’ 
attaches itself generally to the form vaid strengthened by the addition 
of a vowel, but passes also to the shorter form. For a conjecture as 
to the primary meaning see above p. 101. Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 339 ff. 
discusses it more at length: from the meaning find, get a thing found, 
and the Ved. w-vid ‘di-gnoscere’ he gets as far as di-vid-ere and 
makes some very good comparisons. —For the Ff the name of the 
Spartan magistrates Bideo: or Bidvor is important: Bidvo. = Att. idvioe 
(see below p. 565), cp. torwp and the ChSl. (Russ.) ved-oku ‘testis.’ 
On the traces of the F in Homer see Knoés 110 ff; on witru-m Corssen 
‘ Beitr.’ 368. — The Lat. viso (cp. Goth. gaveisdn ‘visit’ Fick i. 785) 
has the look of a desiderative, and was perhaps originally reduplicated 
like the Skt. w2-vid-i-sh-a-ti, and accordingly arose from w-vid-s-o 
(Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 190, Pott 1°. 574). — For the Ir. forms see Z?. 
502, for Cymr. 672: on the I. fetar ‘ Beitr.’ vill. 464. 


283. Root id cfid w-i- sweat, id-os, i6-pd-s, i8-pé(r)-s 
sweat. 
U 


290 BOOK II. 


Skt. suid (svéd-a-té, svtd-ja-ti) sweat, svéd-a-s (subst.) 
sweat. 

Lat. sid-d-re, siid-or, stid-ariu-m. 

ON. sveit-i, OHG. sweiz sweat. 

Cymr. chwys sudor (Z*. 124). 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. iv. 759, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 303. —i8-i- is com- 
pletely identical with svid-j-a-mi (‘ Gk. Verb’ p. 208). — Hiibschmann 
‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 18 connects the Armen. khirtn ‘sweat,’ as a correla- 
tive of of1d-po-s (kh = sv, t representative of d, r metathesized). — Cp. 
No. 293. 


284. Root kad «x7d-w hurt, vex, xe-xad-ov (Hom.) vexing, 
robbing (fut. cexadyjow), Kyid-o-uar am troubled 

(fut. kexadjoopat), Knd-os care, anxiety. 
Skt. khad (khad) chew, bite to pieces, eat, consume (2). 


In this comparison [ have followed Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 480, rely- 
ing especially on the meaning ‘ contristare’ given for the Skt. Ahad in 
Westergaard’s ‘ Radices’ and supported by a quotation from the 
‘Vedas.’ But the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ knows nothing of this meaning, but only 

243 the physical one of eating, on which Corssen fastens (‘ Beitr.’ 455) in 
order to explain ces-na, cena, Umbr. cers-na by means of the assumed 
primary form skad (cp. No. 294). Seeing, however, that of the same 
suitors who dAdérpioy Biorov (oikoy m 431) virowov gover (a 160) it is 
said oikoy kndecxoy (yy 9), since curae are called edaces, and even 66-ivy 
is referred perhaps rightly to the rt. é6 (No. 279), we may allow this 
comparison to stand. Fick 1°. 805, Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 373. 


285. xovi-s pl. kovid-es nits, eggs of lice, ete. — AS. hnit 
(Eng. nit), OHG. hniz (Germ. Wisse). — Bohem. 
hnida. 


Pott 7. 107, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 411, Benf. i. 190, Walter ‘Ztschr.’ 
xii, 382. — The primary form is knid, whence by the introduction of 
an o kod (cp. porB8os No. 552). The synonymous words with 7 (Lat. 
lend-es, Lith. glinda-s) I now agree with Fick 1°. 538 and Corssen ‘ Ital. 
Sprachkunde’ 216 in omitting. — A further variety is to be seen in the 
Olr. sned, Cymr. nedden ‘ louse’ Z?. 121. 


286. Root wed péd-w, wéd-o-pwal, u7d-0-wal measure, con- 
sider, 1€d-ovr-es counsellers, lords, ujo-Top coun- 
seller, u7d-os counsel, plan, uéd-1-~vo-s measure,. 
bushel. 

Lat. mod-u-s, mod-tu-s, modes-tu-s, moder-ari. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 291 


Goth. mit-a I mete, measure, mit-6n consider, OHG. 
mézan measure (Germ. messen), méz, mdza measure 
(Germ. Maass). 

Oly. dep. midiur puto, perf. ro médar judicavi, mess 
judicium. 

Pott W. 1. 274, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 411, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 158. — ped is 
evidently an offspring of the shorter rt. we (Skt. ma No. 461) (p. 62), 
but has no intimate connexion with me-ti-or, which finds its counter- 
part in the Lith. ma-té-ju ‘I measure.’ Perhaps peo-ro-s ‘ full’ also 
really means ‘ well measured.’ We may add pécpa’ peorwpa Hesych. — 
The Lat. med-éri, med-itdrt, med-icu-s, med-éla, re-med-iu-m which I 
formerly placed here belong clearly to the Zd. madh mad ‘ mederi,’ 
madh-a-s ‘the science of healing, ‘wisdom,’ as was recognized by 
Pictet ‘Ztschr. v. 46. The more general meaning, however, proves 
the agreement with the Gk. pad which is treated at No. 429.— For 
authority for the Irish forms see Z”. 438, 450, cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 235 ; 
mess for med-tu Z?. 787. The Olr. céimdiu, gen. coimded, ‘dominus’ Z’. 
255 has been omitted because the simple (and subsequently aspirated) m 
does not allow of the division into com-midiu. From the Cymric we 
may add medol, meddwi ‘thought’ (‘ meditatio’ Z?. 818). 


287. Root perd pérAd-w, wéAO-0-nar melt. 
ON. smelt-i, OHG. smilz-u melt, smelt. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ s. v. mard, which root with the meaning ‘ conterere’ he 
compares with this one. In that case mard must have lost an initial 
s; the meaning too seems to me to be hard to reconcile, since the Skt. 
mard, Zd. mared ‘bite, ‘gnaw’ has evidently its counterpart in the 
Lat. mord-eo. — Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 412, Pott W. 11. 1, 542. 


287 b. Root ved Néd-n, Néd-wv, Néo-r0-s.— Skt. nad (ndd- 
d-mi) sound, bellow, nadd-s bellower (bull), 
river, nad-i river, flood. 


Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 123, Preller ‘Gr. Mythologie’ ii”, 246, so too 244 
Pott ‘Jahn’s Jahrb. Suppltb.’ iii. 313. — These different river names 
are evidently allied. The etymon of ‘bellowing’ is especially suitable 
for the Néda in the Peloponnese, since it is called by Strabo AdBpov &k 
rod Avkaiov xatiov, and described as a ‘roaring stream’ (E. Curtius 
‘Peloponnesos ’ i. 343). The Thracian Néoros too is added to the list : 
it was also called Néooos, and there is no doubt that the name of the 
centaur Néooos is of the same origin. Sonne associates Néorwp also 
with these words as ‘the roarer, as being a ocedav tmmos. This 
is a mystery for Mythology to solve. Cp. note to No. 432. 

OLZ 


292 BOOK Il. 


288. Root 05 é¢@ (pf. dd-wd-a) smell (intrans.), 66-y7 
(60-44) odour, dvc-é6-ns of an evil smell, oo- 
dp-aivo-par olfacio. 

Lat. od-or, od-orari, ol-eo (ol-o), ol-facio. 
Lith. tid-4-u inf. %s-ti smell, trace out, id-ima-s a 
smelling. 


Pott W. iv. 344 ff., Benf. i. 249. — The present form 0(a=68-j-0, a 
formation completely parallel to the Lith. éd-%-u = tid-j-u (Schleich. 
‘Lit. Gr.’ p. 66), ep. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 203, on dofpatvoua ib. p. 283.— Benf. 
‘Or. u. Occ.’ 1. 626 holds 68 ‘smell’ and é ‘eat’ to be identical roots, 
noticing the use of the word taste, but éd does not mean to taste. 


289. ddov-s (st. ddovrT) tooth (Aeol. pl. edovres). — Skt. 
da(n)t, dant-a-s, Zd. davit-an tooth, point. — Lat. 
den-s (st. dent). — Goth. tunth-u-s, ON. tind-r 
point, OHG. zand tooth. — Lith. dant-i-s tooth. 
— Cymr. dant tooth, OI. dé. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. iv. 287 ff., Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 161. On the Aeol. 
form Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ p. 80. — It was long regarded among Comparative 
Philologists as proved that the root was ed (No. 279), as held by Pollux 
vi. 38 amd edeopdrav . . . . amd TovTov yap memoinvrat oiov eSovrés twWes ob 
oddvres (Lobeck ‘ad Aj.’ v, 360); afterwards Schleicher ‘Comp.®’ 76, 
Max Miiller 11. 262, Hugo Weber ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 244 preferred to derive the 
word from the rt. da ‘ divide’ (No. 256), principally because it is only 
in Gk. that a vowel appears before the d. Still I do not regard this 
as altogether proved, for it happens that the Greeks held the initial 
vowels with great tenacity in other cases as well, e.g. in gopes by the 
side of the Skt. s-mas, Zd. h-mahi, Lat. s-wmus, and although in this 
case it is true that the Lithuanian és-me holds with the Gk. as well 
as the Slavonic and Keltic forms, it is not so e. g. with év, i.e. es-u = | 
Skt. su, Zd. hu, OPr. u, Ir. sw. Again the vowel o in the second 
syllable which answers to the Lat. e will not agree with the rt. da. 
How easy on the other hand, in a word of such frequent use, for an 
initial vowel to fall away when the sense of the etymon was oblite- 
rated. As ¢6-ovr is related to the rt. éd (No. 279), so is the Skt. khad- 
ana-s ‘ tooth’ to the rt. khdd (No. 284), and gay-dv-es to the rt. pay 
(No. 408). — vadd-s* 6 dddvras ode €xov Hesych., resembles the Skt. shd- 
da=shé-dant ‘ with six teeth, though this word is viewed with sus- 
picion by the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ 


290. St. ddus 6d-ddve-ral, ddvo-d-uynv, ddvacd-pevo-s be 
angry, hate, adua-in (Hesych. dpy7), ’Odva-ev-s (2). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 293 


Skt. dvish (dvesh-mi) hate, am disinclined, dvish 245 
(nom. dvit) hate, enemy, dvésh-a-s, dvésh-as hate. 
Pott W. i. 572, ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 212, Benf. ii. 223. — The o is prothetic, 
vi contracted to v as in ypi-i-s for ypy-Fi-s (above p. 176) and %68-vn-s 


(p. 242). In Skt. too we have in dush (mentioned at No. 278) an un- 
doubted connexion of dvish. 


290 b. ofd-pa swell, of8é-, ofdé-w swell, ofSdévw, oidaiva 
make to swell, ofd-os tumor. — Lat. aem-idu-s 
(tumidus). — ON. eit-r matter (in an abscess), 
OHG. etz swelling. 


Fick 1°. 507, who even connects MHor-e.d-dwv as ‘lord of the waves,’ 
Lacon. Moco.day or Wooiddy (Baunack ‘ Stud.’ x. 131) and the Skt. indu-s 
‘drop, Zimmer ‘Suff. a’ p. 286. 


291. Root med wéd-o-v, wed-fo-v ground, country, 7éd-n 
fetter, 7éd-iAo-v sole, we(6-s pedestris, wé¢a foot, 
border, zrov-s (st. zrod) foot. 

Skt. pad (pdd-je) fall, go towards, pad-d-m tread, 
step, place, spot, foot-print, track, pad, pdd, 
pad-a-s foot, pad-d-tt-s, pat-ti-s pedestrian, pad- 
uka-s shoe. — Zd. pad go, padh-a (m.) foot. 

Lat. ped-u-m, op-pid-u-m, ped-ica, com-pe(d)-s, ped- 
ule (sole), pe(d)-s, ped-e(t)-s, ped-es-ter, tri-pod-are, 
tri-pud-iu-m ; Umbr. du-purs-us = bi-ped-ibus. 

ON. fjo-tur-r fetter, Goth. fdt-u-s, OHG. fuoz foot. 

Lith. pdd-a-s sole, péd-ad footprint. 

Bopp ‘Gl., Pott W. iv. 157 ff., Benf. ii. 92. From the primary 
meaning ‘tread’ was developed that of the ‘ ground trodden on,’ of 
‘the shoe or the fetter into which one steps,’ and that of ‘ the foot that 
treads’ (cp. No. 281 and p. 114).— As from pe-s we easily get im-ped- 
are, com-pes and ped-ica ‘ foot-fetter,’ then ‘fetter, ‘snare’ generally, 
so from médy we have meddw, while the Lat. pedare means ‘stride.’ 
The Lat. correlative of mén is ‘peda vestigium humanum’ (Paul. 
‘Ep. 211), which has its counterpart in the Lith. péda. — Corssen 
‘Ttal. Sprachk.’ 333 takes pesswm as ‘ to the floor,’ ‘to the ground.’ — 
On op-pedu-m, later op-pidu-m, 16 én 6 medio, the town regarded as the 
defence of the country, hence also ‘ oppidum locus in circo unde quad- 
rigae emittuntur’ (Fest. p. 184), see above p. 79. Déderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 
2341 compares the ady. oppido with eumedov; we may grant this 
without identifying op with ev. In another way i-lico (illico) may be 


246 


294, BOOK II. 


compared. — Perhaps also ped-u-m ‘ shepherd’s crook’ belongs here. 
It is true that the meaning of 778-av ‘leap’ is somewhat foreign to 
that of the other offshoots from our root, but wndav can hardly be 
separated from m7Sdv ‘flat, lower part of the oar,’ mydddiov ‘ rudder.’ 
Cp. Heinr. Schmidt ‘Synonym.’ i. 538. The Skt. root means also 
‘fall’ and in this meaning corresponds to the ChSI. pad-¢ ‘cado,’ but 
the compounds show the more general meaning ‘go,’ ‘tread.’ With 
pad ‘ fall’ Fick i°.135 connects the Lat. pes-ti-s. Similar transitions 
of meaning under rt. pat, Gk. wer (No. 214). — Zimmer ‘ Suff. a’ pp. 72, 
298 assumes, especially on the ground of the OHG. fezzil ‘ fetter,’ 
which he thinks he cannot separate either from édy or from the 
Germ. Fass ‘ cask,’ an otherwise unattested rt. pad ‘ embrace.’ 


292. Root mepd, mépd-o-war (€-rapd-o-v, mé-mropd-a) pedo, 
mopo-y% peditum, wépd-ré (st. wepdcx) partridge (?). 
— Skt. pard (pdrd-é) pedo, pard-a-s, pard-ana-m 
mopon.— Lat. péd-o, pod-ex. — OHG. fire-u (Germ. 
JSurzen).— Bohem. prd-im, Lith. pérd-z-u inf. pérs- 
ti pedere, pird-i-s mropdy. 

Bopp ‘ GL.’ Pott W. iv. 536, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 121. — On péd-or, the 
form paedor and pédic-are along with the other allied words cp. 
Biicheler ‘Rh, Mus.’ xiii. 153, xviii. 386, Fleckeisen ‘Jahrb. 1861, 
574, and Corssen’s objections i?. 648. The ¢ is suppressed in Lat. and 
the vowel lengthened in compensation (cp. ppédr-os for ppeapros). mepd- 
E, ‘mapa TO mepdev, ‘eum enim sonum edit’ Jos. Scaliger ‘ad Var- 
ronem’ p. 187 (ed. 1573). So the other name of the bird xaxxaBis re- 
minds us of No, 28. These etyma cannot have been present to the 
minds of the ancients, or Alkman (fr. 60 B.) would not have con- 
sidered the xaxxaBides to be his teachers of song. Gerland too ‘ tiber 
die Perdixsage’ Halle 1871 denies the connexion with the rt. zepé. 


293. aid-npo-s iron. — Skt. svéd-anit iron plate, pan. — 
OHG. sweiz-jan frigére. 


Benf. i. 466, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 132. — More doubtful is the con- 
nexion with the OHG. smid-én ‘forge’ (Germ. schmieden), smeidar 
‘smith,’ especially on account of the irregularity in the sound-change. 
Cp. too Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ ii. 745 on the name ‘ Sweden.’ — The rt. sued 
has been already seen in the form iS No. 283. It is not surprising 
that in the name of the metal, the sense of the origin of which must 
have been early lost, the sibilant survived. Cp. moreover the 
double form opé and ¢ from sva, od-s and é-s and under No. 280 o¢das.— 
Pictet i. 168 disputes this derivation with the words: ‘il me semble 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 295 


difficile 4 croire que le plus réfractaire des métaux usuels ait tiré son 
nom de la notion de fusibilité. There is no need though for the 
meaning of oid-npo-s to be ‘fusible,’ it may be ‘prepared by melt- 
ing,’ and that suits iron exactly, because it must first (ep. Max Miiller ii. 
226) be separated from other minerals by melting. — It is by no means, 
however, to be assumed from this comparison that the Indo-Germans 
were acquainted with iron before their division. Max Miller aptly 
recalls Hesiod "Epya 153 pédas & otk éoxe cidnpos, as evidence that the 
Greeks themselves had an idea of a time when the wodvepyros oiSnpos 
had not yet been discovered. It is only the root that is common te 
the languages, and applied in a similar way. — Otherwise Pott i*. 127, 
who compares the Lith. svid-a-s ‘bright,’ and the Lat. std-us. 


294. Root cxed (oyxd, xed), cxed-dvvu-p, KeO-dvvv-p burst 
asunder (trans.), scatter, oxid-va-cfai to scatter 
oneself, spread oneself abroad, oxéd-a-o1-s a burst- 
ing asunder, oyéd-n (dim. cyed-dprov) tablet, leaf, 
oxed-a raft. 

Skt. skhad (skhad-é), (in dictionaries of roots) split, 
kshad take to pieces. 
Lat. scand-ula (scindula) a shingle (used for roofing). 


Cp. No. 284 and 295, Benf. 1. 169, Fick 1°. 805. — cxe6-ia is a col- 
lective to ox¢d-n in the assumable meaning of ‘billet’ or ‘plank.’ 
Miillenhoff compares with oxédy the Goth. skatts ‘coin, OHG. scaz. 
It would in this case have arrived at its special meaning in the same 
Way as xépua.— The a seems to be retained in the rt. cyad cxag-o 
‘split, ‘tear, to which ya¢- ‘I separate myself,’ ‘ yield,’ seems to be 
the intransitive (Lob. ‘Rhemat.’ 84, Pott W. 1. 311). In oxidynu, on 
the other hand, the « is weakened to+ as in rirynu (cp. below p. 711). — 
The unexpanded rt. «xa (cp. No. 45 b) occurs in oxd-o, a well-estab- 
lished Attic by-form of ocxdfw (‘ Phrynichus’ ed. Lobeck 219). Cp. 
‘Gk. Verb’ p. 524. 


295. Root ckid cyid, cyf¢-@ split, cyif-a log, cyxiéd-n, 
oxid-a€, cx.vd-ahpé-s splinter, shingle. 
Skt. Khid (Khindd-mi, Khind-a-mi) cut off, tear in 
pieces, divide, destroy, partic. Khinna-s enfeebled. 
—Zd. ¢cid shatter. 
Lat. scind-o (sci-cid-i, sctd-t), caed-o, cae-lu-m (chisel). 
Lith. skéd-éu divide, skéd-rd chip, splint. 
Bopp. ‘GI.’ Pott i’. 244, who also adds the Maced. cxoidos or koidos 
oixovduos (Sturz ‘ Dial. Maced.’ 26, Pollux x. 19), Benf. 1.168. Here 


~“T 


296 BOOK II. 


belongs also oxuS-apdé-v" dpaiv Hes. — On the change of the initial letters 
Lob. ‘El. i. 125, on the relation of the meanings Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ 
iii. 427. I now put caedo here with Leo Meyer and Schweizer 
‘Ztschr.’ xii. 228, cp. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 453, Pott W.i. 537.— The d of 
the Goth. skaid-an xopitew, OHG. scett ‘ discissio,’ for which Fick 1°. 
815 assumes a separate rt. skidh, forbids us to compare these with the 
above Gk. and Skt. words. 


296. Root cpad cfad-é¢-a start, am restless, rpad-acpo-s 
spasm, desire, impatience, sped-avé-s eager, violent, 
i ood-pé-s vehement.— ogevd-dv7y sling, opevd-ovay 
to sling. 
Skt. spand (spand-é) burst forth, start, spanda-s a 
starting. 

Benf. ii. 361, Pott W. iv. 730.— The o produces aspiration as in 
axid by the side of oxd, etc.— The physical meaning ‘spasmodic 
motion’ is best preserved in d-odddacro-s ‘ without convulsion, and 
in odevddyn, also no doubt in odovd-vdo-s ‘ twirling wheel of a spindle,’ 
then any ‘ whirling body’ generally. From this, however, it is not so 
very far to onéSew ‘the hurling away of a liquid.’ Perhaps Grass- 
‘mann ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 102 is right in conjecturing that pend-é-re ‘to 
move oneself like a pendulum’ belongs here. On the other hand I 
now omit the Lat. fuxda, fisu-s, because the f presents difficulties 
(Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 102), and another etymology is possible. 

297. opid-es (xopdat payepixat Hesych.), opid-n (xopdy 
id.). Lat. fide-s (fidi-um), fidi-cen, fidi-cina, fidi- 
culae. 

Vossius ‘Etymol.’ p. 214, Benf. i. 565, Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 9, 30, 
where too the OHG. setto, seita (Germ. Sate) is compared, and the 
loss of a labial in the word conjectured. — This comparison too is 
doubted by Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 105. idiculae ‘ gutstrings as instru- 
ments of torture.’ 

248 298. Ud-w (2), vd-é-w sing, praise, d-(F)e(S-w sing, dodd-s 
singer, doldy song, ander (st. andov) nightingale. 
Skt. vad (vdd-d-mt) speak, sing the praises of, vdnd-é 
praise, honour, vd@d-aja-mi make music, vad-a-s 
utterance, sound, play. 
OHG. far-wdz-u curse, confute. 
Lith. vad-i-n-w call, entice, ChS]. vad-iti accusare. 

Bopp ‘Gl.” Pott W. iv. 602 ff., Benf. i. 364, Fick i. 766. — The 

meanings of these words admit easily of unity of origin, but the pho- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 297 


netic relations have not been made quite clear. The forms with t which 
are first used by Callim., Apollon. Rhod., Nicander, though doubtless 
not without precedent in older usage, are related to the Skt. vad as 
the tm in vr-vo-s is to the Skt. svap (No. 391). v8-n-s* cuverds } mourns 
Hesych. points rather to the rt. Fid, to which belongs vd-vn-s° cidds, 
eumetpos (No. 282). In the rest the @ is prothetic, the digamma is 
preserved only in the Boeot. pay-aFvdd-s, etc. (Beermann ‘ Stud.’ 
ix. 55), and in d8ndev (Hesych.) The explanation which seems to 
me most probable is that there sprung up by the side of vad a rt. vid, 
like skid by the side of skad (No. 295). Joh. Schmidt ‘ Vocal.’ i. 125 
takes another view. Cp.‘Gk. Verb’ p.153. dfndév would have to be 
derived from afed = vad. From fd, on the other hand, we get quite 
regularly dfeide, dfo.do-s with prothetic a. 65 is a still further weaken- 
ing from vad, passing perhaps by way of the above wd. Cp. ddus = 
dvish (No. 290). If avd-7 belongs here it is related to the Skt. vad 
as av-pa is to the Skt. va ‘to blow’ (No. 587). It is strikingly con- 
jectured by Clemm ‘Comp.’ 28, that the second part of “Hai-odo-s 
comes from this root, so that the name would mean iels * ddnp (i. e. ddqv). 
— With the Gk. dodn from the rt. vid, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 330 iden- 
tifies the Olr. faed ‘ report,’ ‘cry,’ Cymr. gwaedd ‘ clamor,’ 
299. dpa, Udpo-s water-snake, #AXo-s ichneumon (?). 

Skt. udrd-s a water animal, otter, Zd. udra (m.) a 
water animal. 

AS. oter, OHG. otter otter. 

ChSl. vydra, Lith. wdra otter. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Benf. 1. 452, Pott W.iv. 332. — The word is clearly de- 
rived from a noun-stem (ud or udar ‘ water’).— The Gk. é-vdpi-s 
‘otter,’ ‘ water-snake,’ is like the adj. évvdpo-s of a much later stamp. 
— If dAdo-s is related it must be regarded as a diminutive. 

800. Ud-wp (st. dapr) Boeot. ovdmp water, ddp-ia water- 
jug, ddp-ev-w draw water, tdpaiv-w I water, dv- 
vdpo-s without water, vdapis, tdapd-s watery, 
bdep-o-s, Udp-wyy dropsy. 

Skt. rt. ud (u-nd-d-mi, wnd-a-mi) gush forth, moisten, 
ud-a- (in comp.), uda-kd-m water, ud-dn wave, 
water, an-udrda-s without water. 

Lat. und-a, pal-ti(d)-s (2) (No. 361). 

Goth. vat-d (st. vatan), OHG. waz-ar water, OHG. 
und-a, und-ea unda, fluctus. 

ChSl. vod-a, Lith. vand-% (st. vanden). 249 

Olr. usce, wisce aqua. 


298 BOOK II. 


Bopp ‘GI., Pott W. iv. 330 ff., Grimm ‘Gesch,’ 411, Benf. i. 448, 
Stokes ‘Ir Gl’ 69.— We must start from a double form, vad the 
stronger and #8 the weaker, of which only the latter occurs in 
Greek. Cp., however, Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 264 on the supposed Phrygio- 
Macedonian form Bédv ‘ water,’ ‘air;’ he associates it with the dat. 
%Sec in Hesiod “Epya 61, for which later writers furnished the nom. 
%Sos. — For the form ddep I start from the stem idapr which I hold to 
be derived by addition of r from dap (cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 214). The 
Lat. udor, adduced by Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 379 rests on a false reading 
in Varro ‘L. L.’ v.§ 24 Mill. — av-eo to which belongs w-du-s, is dis- 
cussed at No. 158. — The Gk. v6-v-n-s in the sense of ‘ watery, ddveiv ‘ to 
water’ have no authority, Hesych. knows only ddveiv tpépew, which has 
nothing to do with this root. Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 200 gives in- 
stances of irregularities in sound-change which warrant our putting 
OHG. wnda, undea here. — The Ir. usce (ia- stem Z?. 230) was formed 
from ud-like mesc ‘drunk,’ mesce ‘ drunkenness’ from med- (No. 322), 
Lat esca from ej- (No. 279). 


S) 


Greek 6 corresponds to Indo-Germanic and Sanskrit dh, 
which is represented in Latin at the beginning of a word 
sometimes by f, in the middle usually by d, seldom by 8B, 
in Zend (with the occasional substitution of dh), Gothic, 
Slavonic, Lithuanian, Old Irish universally by d, in High 
German by ¢. 


301. d-c0-Xo-v, d-€0-dL0-v the prize of a contest, d-«8-do-s 
contest, d-«0A«v-w engage in a contest, ’ZOAn-THp 
competitor. 

Lat. vd(d)-s, vadi-moniu-m, vad-ari, prae(d)-s. 
Goth. vad-i pledge, ga-vad-j-6n promise, OHG. wetti 
pignus, vadimonium, MHG. wette pledge, prize, 
prize-fighting, OF ris. wit-ma, OHG. widamo price 
of a wife, OF ris. wed bargain, bail, ON. vedhja 
pignore certare. [Scotch wadset, OEng. wadd 
pledge (whence wedlock). | 
Lith. vad-dju to redeem a pledge. 
Déderlein ‘Reden und Aufsiitze’ ii. 109 (otherwise ‘Gloss.’ 973), 
Diefenbach ‘ Vgl. Worterb.’ i. 140 ff., where, however, the Greek words 
are not given.— Whoever compares the three primary meanings of 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 299 


the European words here collected —‘ wager, ‘pledge,’ ‘ bail,’ will 
not fail to recognize the connexion between them; a connexion of 
great antiquity and of great importance to the historian of law. — 250 
The uncontracted forms occur almost exclusively in Homer. The a 
is prefixed as in depoay (Spécov Kpires Hesych.) No. 497. That the 
Gk. words are used originally of sham and not real fighting is 
specially proved by II 590 3) ev déOd@ née Kai ev modu, hence too tmzror 
deOXopdpor. Hence in the metaphorical use of the word only the idea 
of striving is prominent, not that of danger. This is a sufficient 
refutation of the conjecture of Benfey i. 256. — The Lat. prae-s has at 
C. I. Lat. 200, 46 the plural prae-vid-es, which leaves no doubt as 
to the connexion with va(d)-s. Cp. note to No. 180.— Bergk’s 
‘thesis’ that de@dov belongs to deipw (‘Rh. Mus.’ xix. 604) does not 
convince me. 

302. Stem ai6 ai$-w burn, ai6-os a burning, a/6-d-s burnt, 
aid-wv burning, shining, ai6-7p (st. aidep) upper 
air, ai0-pa clear sky. 

Skt. idh (indh-é) kindle, iddha-s (part. = idh-ta-s) 
kindled, pure, idh-md-s, indh-ana-m, edha-s kindler, 
fire-wood. 

Lat. aes-tu-s, aes-ta(t)-s, aed-é-s, aidi-li-s. 

AS. dd (for aid) rogus, OHG. ett rogus, ignis, MHG. 
eit-en to heat, glow, OS. idal, OHG. ital pure, 
clear, OHG. esza a forge. 

Olr. aed fire. 

Pott W. iv. 764, Bopp ‘ GI1.,’ Benf. 1. 259 f., Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 260, Fick 
i°, 508. — The rt. i6 is to be seen in i6-n (Hesych. edppoctyn), i6-apd-s 
‘clear’ (of springs cp. Lob. ‘ Path. Prol.’ 256), i0-aivecOa (Hesych. 
OcppaiverOa).— aede-s meant no doubt originally ‘ fire-place,’ ‘ hearth.’ 
The corresponding Macedonian word—since in Macedonian the medial 
takes the place of the aspirate (Sturz ‘de Dial. Macedon.’ p. 28)— 
seems to have been preserved in Hesych.’s gloss ddi-s * éoxdpa (cp. 
Hesych. ed. Mor. Schmidt No. 1149) and in ddias* écydpa, Baopds 
(1123), so that in this as in several other instances North-Grecian 
and Italian forms resemble each other in sound. dj (otpavis Maxeddves, 
cp. ddpad* aiépia Maxeddves) must be of the same stem; M. Schmidt 
aptly suggests aiéjp in connexion with it. aes-td-s for * aes-te-td-s 
Frohde ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 189.— The meanings ‘ burn’ and ‘ shine’ 
cross each other here, as often. —If Atr-vn is related it must have 
originated in a dialect which is neither Greek nor Latin. — All the 
more certain is it that Aié-/-oy and ai6-op ‘sparkling’ belong to these 
words. 


300 BOOK II. 


308. Root are d&d6-o-nar grow strong, a\0-aiv-w, adO-7- 
ox-w heal, d\6-7-«1-¢ healthy. 

Skt. ardh succeed, flourish, further, satisfy, ardh- 
uka-s prosperous, 7ddhi-s prosperity, a healing 
plant. — Zd. ared grow, further. 

Bopp ‘G1., Benf. 1.70. Cp. No. 523b.— Fick 1°. 498 connects the 
ChSl. rod-a ‘birth,’ ras-ti ‘ grow,’ ‘ flourish,’ 

304. dv6-os germ, blossom, flower, dv6-e-yo-v flower, 
av0é-m bloom, &v6-n blossom, av@npo-s blooming, 
av0-ep-edv chin, av6-ép-.é the beard of an ear of 
corn, stalk, a@0-7p (st. a0ep) beard of an ear of corn, 
a0-dpn groats. 

Skt. dndh-as herb, greens, juice, food. 

Lat. ad-or spelt, ador-eu-s (2). 


‘Pet. Dict.,’ cp. Benf. 1. 77. — The root is a0, whence perhaps comes 
also ’A6-jvn ‘the blooming one’ with the words connected with it at 
‘Ztschr.’ ii. 158, to which no doubt d6-dp-1o ‘maidenly’ (ai py 
SiarerrapOevevpevae Hesych.) belongs. Lobeck ‘Rhem.’ 300 translates 
’"AOjvat by ‘Florentia.’ It is certain that ’Av6-nvn, ’Av6-ndn, ’AvO-ndav 
are related. The Homeric forms too adv-nvoO-e, év-nvob-e, ém-ev-nvob-e 
(Buttm. ‘ Lexil.” i. 266) are of the same family, with an o inserted: 
avo for av. The syllables av, €v must, however, be regarded as pre- 
positions, so that dv-jvob-e, év-nvob-e (Gk. Verb’ pp. 399, 429) are as 
it were strong perfects to dv-avOéw, év-avOéw, to which they are related 
as yé-ynO-a is to ynbéo. Cp. ‘E. M.’ p. 107, Doderlein ‘Gl’ 715. The 
ideas ‘sprout’ (shoot up) and ‘spout’ (shoot out) encounter each 
other also in the rt. dda, Pre, prv (No. 412).— The Romans them- 
selves regarded ador as a primitive name of ‘corn,’ cp. Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 3, 
Hor. ‘Sat.’ 11. 6, 89, hence adorea and perhaps even adoriosus glorio- 
sus, old Lat. adosiosus (Bergk ‘de Carminum Saliarium reliquiis 
prooem.’ Marburg. hib. 1847-1848 p. iv. sq.). Still perhaps Lottner 
is right (‘Ztschr.’ vii. 163) in connecting ador with the Goth. at-isk-s 
‘seed.’ In that case ad-or belongs to the rt. ed (No. 279). So Pott W.i. 
170. — The Iv. ander ‘young woman’ must be related to the Gk.dv@npos: 

305. @6 (cFee) €6-os habit, manner, 76-os abode, manner, 
custom, 70¢to-s trusty, «/-w6-a am wont, €6-i¢-o 
accustom. 

Skt. svadha@ habit, manner, home, anu svadhd-m ac- 
cording to custom. 

Goth. sid-u-s, OHG. sit-w 700s, Goth. sidén to 
practise. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 301 


Benf. i. 573, and Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ i. 134 f. were the first to break 
up the Skt. sva-dha@ into the pronominal stem sva=Gk. é, Lat. se 
(No. 601) and the rt. dha=Gk. 6c. Accordingly I regard the primary 
notion of the words which differ only in their suffix—i.e. sva-dha, 
€-0-os, si-d-u-s—as ‘one’s own doing’ (so Windisch ‘Stud.’ ii. 342). 
Cp. Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 1623. — Hesychius’s evé6-a-xa* ciw6-a is testi- 
mony to the F in the st. €6. Cp. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 85. Knos 217 f. 
deals with the traces of the F in 700s. The old and with Homer 
exclusive meaning of ‘dwelling’ (of man and beast) for 760s is 
striking ; it reminds us of the Skt. dhd-man ‘house,’ and accordingly 
on the above showing it must have meant ‘one’s own house. Cp. 
Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 115, xii. 373, Froehde xii. 160. I venture now 
with both these scholars to put sddd-li-s also here, a derivative from 
a lost stem so-da@ (for sva-dha) ‘habit.’ On the other hand I have 
left out sddes, which is moreover of the wrong quantity. — A kindred 
meaning is to be seen in the Lat. sue-sco, sué-tu-s, con-sué-tiido, which 
have come direct from the pronominal stem sva (No. 601) ‘self, 
‘own’ (cp. swu-s), and probably also in é-rn-s, €-rapo-s, éraipo-s, ChSl. 
sva-tit ‘affinis,’ ete. 

306. Root épvd épevO-m make red, épvO-pd-s red, EpevO-os 252 
redness, €pv0p-.d-@ blush, épuvciBn mildew. 

Skt. rudh-i-rd-s red, bloody, réh-i-ta-s (for rodh-i- 
ta-s) red. 

Lat. ruber, rufu-s, rob-igo. — Umbr. rufru. 

ON. rjédh-r rubicundus, 7jédha cruentare, Goth. 
raud-s red, ga-riud-j6 shamefacedness, OHG. rd¢t, 
rost red, rust. 

ChSl. rtid-é-ti se blush, ruéid-r% rutilus, ru%Zd-a rob- 
igo; Lith. raud-d red colour, rvd-a-s reddish 
brown, rudi-s rust. 

Olr. ruad red, Cymr. rhudd. 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott W. iii. 1017, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 118, Fick i*. 745. — 
The ¢ is prothetic, as in No. 143. — Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 5 ff. goes for 
the root to rudh ‘ flow’ (of blood), though this root can only be found in 
its verbal use in Zend. According to him it has arisen from sru-dh. 
The Lat, riv-telu-s, which anyhow has not, like fi-te-s by the side of 
fut-tili-s, preserved a trace of a d in the length of its vowel, Bugge is 
perhaps right in separating altogether from these words. 


307. Root ea, 6H 67-cOa: (Hom.) to milk, 47-caTo he 
sucked, 6y-Aq7 teat, OnAH wet-nurse, OnrAa-ydv 
suckling, nourishing, 77-67, 71-04-vn, Tiz-On nurse, 


302 BOOK II. 


ti-rO0-s teat, O7-Av-s female, 674-vi0-v milk (Hes.), 
yara-On-v6-s sucking milk. 

Skt. dha (dhdéj-d-mi) drink, suck, dhd-trt nurse, 
mother, ddé-dhi sour milk, dhé-nvi-s milch-cow. — 
Zd. daénu woman. 

Lat. fé-la-re suck, f@-mina, Umbr. fe-l-iu, Lat. f7-l- 
iu-s, fr-l-ia. 

Goth. dadd-ja, OHG. td-u lacto, OHG. ti-la mamma. 

ChSl. doja lacto, doi-l-ica nutrix, dé-te infans, dé-va 
virgo. 

Olz. dé-th suxit, ro dine-s-tar suxit, dinu lamb (dat. 
dinit), del teat. 


Bopp ‘G1. ‘Vgl. Gr.’ i. 299, Pott W. i. 176, Benf. 11. 270, Grimm 
‘Gesch.’ 404, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 117. — The double d in the Goth. daddja 
= OHG. tdju is discussed by Miillenhoffin Haupt’s ‘ Ztschr, x1. 387.— 
Of the Latin words fé-la-re undoubtedly belongs here ; the form with 
one / is, according to Biicheler, ‘ Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 1863 p. 780, the more 
approved one. The verb proves the existence of a subst. fela, corres- 
ponding exactly to the Gk. 6n-dn, Iv. del, and the OHG. ti-la. The 
connexion of fé-mina and fi-l-iu-s with this root, on the other hand, 
was denied by Dietrich (‘ Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 81, 39) and again by Corssen 
(‘ Beitr.’ 188, ‘ Ausspr.’ 12. 144, ‘Ital. Sprachk.’ 182 ff). In deference 
to Corssen’s exhaustive discussion I concede that both words can be 
derived phonetically from the rt. fu (No. 417), since fle(v)-o, for in- 
stance (No, 412), shows that fe(v)-o could come from the rt. fu, and 
since fé-nus (cp. tékos, ‘ interest’), fé-cundu-s, fé-tu-s can quite well be 
explained by this root (otherwise Fick i*. 630). But my etymology is, as 
Corssen admits, just as admissible phonetically, and I hold it to be the 
more probable one for the reason that the rt. fw is in no case applied 

253 specially to the action of the woman in propagation, as is the case 
with the rt. gen (No. 128), and is consequently less adapted to desig- 
nate the female of man and beast as distinguished from the male. On 
the other hand the rt. dha ‘suckle’ is precisely the one most adapted 
for this. The Skt. dhd-rd-s ‘sucking’ is the intransitive to 67-Av-s 
‘suckling.’ If we consider again that in Greek, in Zend, and in the 
Slavonic languages the idea ‘woman’ actually was designated by a 
word from this root, it can hardly be doubted that this happened 
before the separation of the languages, and that though the Romans 
used a different suffix they brought their fémina ‘the suckler’ with 
them from the East. Since then the Gk. Oyayav (cp. OnAapwwod* 
veoyvod Hes.), Lett. déls ‘filius,’ Lith. déé ‘suckling’ (Ebel. ‘ Beitr.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 303 


vili. 369) and the Slav. words for ‘child’ come from the very same 
source, I think the Umbr. feliuf (sif feliuf=sues filios) comes in better 
here than under the rt. fu. The Messap. bilia-s, Alban. bzlj ‘son’ 
compared by Stier ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 147 with filiu-s are no obstacle to 
the above views. The stem fil-io would accordingly be derived from 
féla ‘teat,’ in the sense of tropacridus. It can be no objection that 
this original meaning is to be seen nowhere but in the Umbr.—here 
at any rate it is present; we can hardly talk of the sons of a pig. — 
Among proper names Tn-6i-s, translated by G. Hermann by Alumnia, 
and ©é-ri-s seem related (Welcker ‘Gdtterl” i. 618). I. Bekker 
‘Hom. Bl.’ i. 222 is no doubt right in explaining Ty-6v-s to be for 
©n-ru-s by a transposition of the aspiration.— Whether t-6a-cd-s 
‘tame,’ as has been conjectured, and rur-66-s ‘little’ (cp. rirOn) are 
related, I will not decide. — Lobeck ‘ Rhemat.’ 5 (cp. Pott W. i. 180) 
conjectures, after Greek etymologists, that 6j-c6a is connected 
with ridéva (No. 309) ‘quia lactantes uberibus adhibentur.’ The 
Olr. dith (t- pret. Z?. 456) with the gloss ro dinestar Broce. ‘ Hy. 76: 
the latter word presupposes a pres. dinim (cp. Skt. dhinot? ‘ satisfy ;? 
dinu ‘agna’ (Z?. 257) is an old part. in ant, di-=Gk. 6n-: del Corm. 
‘Transl. p. 54, where Stokes also gives delech ‘ milch-cow.’ — Cp. 
No. 310. 


308. Root ejaF Hom. 0n-cafaro mirarentur, Dor. 6é-pa1, 
6a-é-opar (Ion. On-é-opai, Att. Oe-d-opar) stare, 
look, @av-c-ixpio-v (Hesych.) platform for sight- 
seers, Jat-ya a wonder, 0a-rv-s° Oewpia (Hes.), 
Od-a (Dor.), 6é-a view, Oéa-rpo-v a place for 
seeing, theatre. 

Chl. div-i-ti se daupd (ev, div-es-a Oavydéo.a, Bohem. 
div-a-dlo 0éarpov. 


Benf. 11. 364, Dietrich ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 431. Cp. Pott W. i. 573. With 
Brugman ‘Stud.’ iv. 150 (Van. 404) I now start from the rt. dhjav 
and regard the ¢ of @ed(F)-o-ya as the representative of j (cp. éred-s 
No. 208), while in other forms, like 6ad-a, 64-ya, Hom. 6y-caiaro 
(o 191) the 7 has been suppressed. — On the Doric forms (also the 
Lac. é-ca-pev, i.e. €-Oa-pev, €Oewpotpev) cp. Ahrens ‘Dor.’ p. 342 f. 
Perhaps there is no composition in 6af-po-s (Gcipoi=Oew-poi in the 
Thasian inser. C. I. 2161, 1. 2), 6ao-po-s and with interchange of 
quantity the Ion. 6ew-pd-s ‘spectator.’ Lobeck had already (‘ad Aj.’ 
p- 404) suggested that the word was no compound, — (Dor.) 6ea-pé-s 
has the F suppressed. At Hes. ‘Scut.’ 165 the best reading is @avpa- 
ra épya. Hesych. has 6780s" 6atua with B for F.— Bopp’s and Fick’s 254 


304 BOOK II. 


(1°. 637) comparison of the Skt. dhz, dhjai with @edoua, a comparison 
which leaves @atdua altogether out of the question, seems to me un- 
tenable. 
309. Root oe 7i-Oy-pu place, do, 0é-~a propositum, 0é-c1-s5 
a placing, 0e-c-d-s rule, 0é--s law, Oe-é-AL0-y, 
6é-ye-8X0-v foundation, 67}-xn a chest, O7-s (fem. 
6jo00a) hired labourer. 

Skt. dha (dd-dha-mi) place, lay, do, dha-ma(n) dwell- 
ing-place, law, way, condition, dhd-tr* creator, 
dhd-tu-s stuff, radix verbi (thema).—Zd. dé place, 
make, produce, dé-ta-m rule, law, daman creature, 
dd-mi creation. | 

Ose. faa-ma house (2), fam-el, Lat. fam-ulu-s oikérns, 
Sdm-il-ia. 

Goth. ga-déd-s Oéo.s, OS. déd-m, OHG. té-m do, 
OHG. td-t deed ; Goth. dém-s [ Eng. doom], OHG. 
tuom judicium. 

ChSl. dé-j-a, de-zd-a (= de-dj-q) facio, dé-lo opus, 
Lith. dé-mi, de-dw lay, place, put away. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 138, Benf. 11. 266, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 405. — The 
two main meanings of the root: set, 1. e. ‘put in a place,’ and do, ‘ make,’ 
i.e. ‘bring into being,’ ‘set going,’ are, as Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 660 ff. 
has shown, clearly visible in the earliest Sanskrit. In Greek, it is 
true, the former prevails, but the second does unmistakeably occur 
from Homer onwards in usages like oxédacw Oeiva, ci S€ pv aiypnrny 
eOecav Oeoi, yéhov Ocivaz. In Teutonic and Slavonic, on the other hand, 
the second main use is the prevalent one. It is therefore inconceiy- 
able how Corssen (‘Ital. Sprachkunde’ 172 ff.) could in the meaning 
of the Ital. rt. fak (fac-io) find any grounds for separating it from the 
rt. dha, with which, according to Italian phonetic laws, it agrees. — On 
Italian soil this root is represénted in four different ways: (1) in the 
Ose. words which are given above, faama is only a deduction from 
faamat ‘he dwells,’ and goes along with the Skt. dhaman (cp. 6e-pé- 
Awo-v); (2) with an expanding « in fac-io, Umbr. fac-iu, fak-ust, 
Ose. fe-fac-ust (Fick ii*. 114), ep. nxn, @-Onka; (3) with a duller 
vowel (cp. Zd. du, by-form of dé ‘make’) in the OLat. forms fuat 
‘ faciat,’ fuet ‘ faciet,’ which were found by Loewe (‘ Prodromus’ 363) in 
glossaries and rightly interpreted; (4) in composition, with d, the 
regular Italian representative of dh, both (a) in eré-de-re, which shows 
a remarkable correspondence to the Skt. ¢rad-da-dha-mi ‘ fidem pono, 
crédo, from erat ‘fides,’ and to the Oly. eretim ‘ credo,’ eretem ‘ fides’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 305 


(Z?. 241, 435, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii, 157), and further in ab-de-re, con-de-re. 
Here the old a is represented by e, 0, and that is how these compounds 
of the rt. dha became mixed up with those of the rt. da ‘give,’ like 
ad-de-re, é-de-re, and (6) in cré-du-a-m and the like, where du-a-m is 
the form taken by fu-a-m=‘faciam’ in the middle of a word. — In 
this way there is no need to separate fio from facto, to which it is the 
passive. It is a present formation in -2o from the unexpanded rt. fa 
(i.e. for fa-io): fio: fa-c-io: : eo (rt. ja): ja-c-io. — The Osc. famel, 
Lat. fam-ulu-s (cp. humu-s, humili-s) are probably derivatives from 
fama ‘house’ (cp. the collective familia). The d of the Latin words 255 
compared with the aa of the Osc. faamat is no more surprising than 
Oé-na by the side of Onxn, Skt. dhd-na-m (acc. to Grassmann literally 
‘reward set before combatants ’) ‘ treasure,’ ‘riches,’ by the side of dha- 
na-s ‘receptacle,’ ‘ position,’ and the Gk. et-Oqyor, ed-Onveiv. — On the 
Slavonic words belonging here cf. Jagi¢ ‘Das Leben der W. dé in d. 
sl. Sprachen’ Wien 1871.— The Olr. dénim, ModIr. déanaim ‘facio,’ 
by the side of the Arem. doen, Corn. doen, Cymr. dwyn ‘ carry’ 
(Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 166, cp. however Z?.18) seems to have lost a con- 
sonant before the m and does not belong to the rt. dha. 


310. Oeto-s uncle, 77j-0) grandmother, 77-6é-s aunt. 
ChSI. dé-du% avus, Lith. dé-da-s uncle, old man, dé-dé 
m. patruus, f. grandmother, dé-dé-na-s cousin. 

Pott ii. 258.— On 17-6y and r7-6i-s (‘quasi parva avia’) Lob. ad 
‘Phryn.’ p. 134 sqq.—A comic derivative from the assumable diminu- 
tive rnOadda is tnOadXadois ‘ grandmother's pet.’ — Connexion with No. 
307 is all the more probable because r7@y means also ‘nurse’ (Suidas, 
Stephanus ‘ Thes.’s.v.). The root extends itself in these words to the 

meaning of ‘caressing treatment.’ Cp. the Engl. to nurse. 


811. Root dev deiv-w strike. — Lat. (fen-d-o) offend-o, de- 
fend-o, in-fen-su-s (2). 


Pott W. ii. 2, 57, Benf. ii. 377, Fick 1°. 632. — Both compare the 
Skt. han, i.e. ghan, ‘strike,’ ‘kill,’ and Benf. also derives from it 
ni-dhdn-a-s ‘mors,’ pra-dhan-a-s ‘ pugna.’ —It is very strange that 
civ should stand so isolated in Gk. Oetvw: fendo = reivw: tendo. — 
Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 183 placed also mant-fes-tu-s, in-fes-tu-s ‘storming 
against’ under this head. Later, however, (‘ Ital. Sprachk.’ 186) he has 
preferred to follow Grassmann (‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 120) and Joh, Schmidt 
(‘ Vocal.’ i. 95), who connect -fend-o with the Skt. badh, badh ‘press 
hard.’ 

312. Oév-ap palm of the hand, sole. — Skt. dhdn-van 
arch, shore, leyel land, dhd-nus arch.— OHG. 
x 


306 BOOK II. 


tén-ar the flat hand, tenni threshing-floor [ Tenne], 
AS. denu valley (?). 


Kuhn ‘ Ztschr. 1. 238, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 405, Pott W. i. 1, 339, 
Fick i%. 632.— Origin in the rt. dev (No. 311) is very improbable. 
For 6évap does not in the least mean the flat hand with which one 
strikes, but acc. to Pollux ii. 143 rd evdoev ris xerpds capKades amd Tov 
peyddou Saxridov péxpe Tov Arxavod, while the back of the hand was 
called in part démioOévap, in part tmoéévap. Since according to this 
only the fleshy parts of the hand are properly called Oévap, it is 
possibly connected with iv, 6i-s ‘heap,’ ‘sand-heap,’ ‘sea-shore,” 
‘bottom of the sea,’ in which case the primary idea would be that of 
a gentle rising. The ‘ Pet. Dict.’, however, compares with 6i-s the Skt. 
dhdnu-s ‘sand-bank,’ ‘projecting mainland,’ ‘island.’ Acc. to Del- 
briick (‘Ztschr. f. d. Philol.’ 1, 8) dhdnvan too seems in the Ry., in 
connexion with samudrasja, i.e. Oceani, to have the same meaning 
as Gis ddds. As far as meaning goes all this exactly suits the OHG. 
din * promontorium, NHG. diine ‘down, which in Grimm’s ‘Dict.’ — 

256 is put under donen, dunen ‘swellup.’ The meaning ‘arch’ in dhdnu-s 
also agrees with it. The absence of the second stage of sound-change 
which has, however, taken place in tén-ar is accounted for, Delbriick 
says (vide supra), by the Low German origin of the words. [The 
French dune, like the AS. din, Eng. down is regarded as of Keltic 
origin: cp. OIr. dun, Cymr. din. Skeat takes these as akin to AS. 
tim. Fick iii. 122. | 

313. Root oeF Oé-w (Oev-copar) run, Oo-6-s swift, Aod¢-w 
move quickly, Bon-06-0-s (cp. Bon-dpép-o-s) helping. 
Skt. dhav-d-mi leak, race, run. 

Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W.1. 1079, Benf. 1. 274.— Cp. rt. 6v No. 320. 

6o-d- ‘I point,’ ‘sharpen’ has nothing to do with it (cp. O7yo). 


314. Onp (Aeol. djp) game, Onp-io-v animal, Onpd-m hunt, 
Ojpa the chase. — Lat. fer-u-s, fer-a, fer-ox. 

Pott 17. 270, 11. 268, Benf. 1. 328, Miklos. ‘Lex.’ 223.— On dnp 
Ahr. ‘ Aeol.’ p. 219 and below p. 484.— All other combinations are 
doubtful (Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 110). For the Goth. diws (OHG. tior) @npiov 
can be compared only on the assumption that an 7 has been lost before 
the s and the ChS§l. zvéri, Lith. zvéri-s ‘fera’ only by starting from a 
primary form dhvar (Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 28, Miklos. ‘ Lex.’). Can it be 
that the unauthenticated Skt. dhir ‘injure’ and even fer-t-o are re- 
lated? So Corssen ‘Beitr. 177. There exists in Zend a rt. dvar 
‘run, ‘dash down’ (used of things of an evil nature), which would fit 
in here well. With this would agree Ootpo-s, Govpio-s ‘ raging,’ * hurry- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 307 


ing, Oop-civ (Adpyvpat, Opookw) ‘spring, ‘rage,’ ‘hurry.’ Cp. the Lith. 
pa-dur-ma ‘impetuously, Otherwise Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 205, i, 145, 
Fick i%. 695. 


315. @pac-v-s bold, Opdo-os, Odpa-os boldness, courage, 
Oapo-é-w (Oapp-é-w) am courageous; Papo-vvw en- 
courage, QOepa-irn-s, Theraic Oapvuaxos, Rhodian 
OapcvBros. 

Skt. dharsh (dhdrsh-d-mi, dhrsh-no-mi) dare, dhrsh- 
ta-s bold, impudent, rash, dhrsh-nui-s bold, dhar- 
sha-s impudence.— Zd. daresh dare, dharshi vehe- 
ment, strong. 

Goth. ga-dars rorya, OHG. gi-tar (pret. gi-tors-ta), 
dare. 

ChSl. drtiz-% Obpacts, drtiz-a-ti, drtz-na-ti Oappeiv, 
Lith. dras-v-s courageous, dras-d courage. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Pott W. u. 2, 419, Benf. ii. 327, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 117, 
who, however, has doubts on account of the z, Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ s. v.— 
The preservation of the o between the two vowels in Gk. is due to 
the fact that the original arrangement of the letters was 6apoos. — 
Benf. brings in the ¢ap-v-pdé-s adduced by Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 42 (roAp- 
npos, Opacis) with ¢ for @ and p for pp, po. — The Macedon. Adppaor 
Saivev 6 irép Tov vooovvtwy etxovra (Hesych.) with 8 for 6 acc. to rule, is 
also related (cp. note to No. 302), accordingly ‘a god of courage.’ — Bréal 
conjectures (‘Ztschr.’ xx. 79), I think rightly, that the Lat. fas-tu-s 
(for fars-tu-s) and fas-tid-iu-m (for fasti-tidiu-m) belong to this root. — 
The Olr. trén ‘fortis’ (Z*. 37) arose, as the compar. tressa and the 
Cymr. trech show, directly out of *trex-na (Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 1117), and 
this does not suit 6pacvs either in the initial or in the final letter of its 
root-syllable. By way of objection to Zimmer’s attempt (‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 257 
207) to prove that an Ir. tr is the regular representative of an original 
dhr, reference may be made to his remark at ‘ Suff. a.’ p. 297. 1. 8. 


316. Root 6pa dap, Opy-ca-cbai to seat oneself, Opé-v-os 
seat, bench, 0p7-vu-s trestle, 0p6-vo-s seat, chair. 
Skt. dhar (dhdér-ad-mi) hold, carry, support, -dhara-s 
carrying, maintaining, dhar-tdr bearer, preserver, 
dhur part of the yoke, dhwr-ju-s beast of draught. 
— Zd. dar hold. 
Lat. fré-tu-s, fré-nu-m. 


Benf. ii. 327, Fick i*, 631.— 6pn-cacGa Philetas in ‘ Athen.’ y. 
X 2 


308 . BOOK II. 


p. 192. As we have pev and pry, reA and rha and rAn, Gay and Orn, 
so here we have a double root-form, Indo-Germ. dhar and dhra. 
dhar is more prevalent in Skt. and Zd., dhra (6pa, 6pn = fré) in Greek 
and Latin. A by-form of 6ep is 6ek. In meaning we can distinguish 
between a purely physical one: ‘ hold, protect,’ and a metaphysical one: 
‘hold by something, hold something in honour, observe. Both mean- 
ings are united in the Skt. dhir-a-s, dhru-vd-s and the Lat. fir-mu-s 
(to which ferme = Germ. fast ‘almost’ by the side of fest ‘firm’ also 
belongs) ‘fast,’ and also in for-ma, which Leo Meyer ‘Gott. Anz.’ 
1850 p. 469 was the first to compare with the Skt. grammarians’ 
dhér-i-man ‘ form’ (cp. Corssen ‘ Ital. Sprachk.’ 157 ff.). — We have 
a purely physical meaning in the Gk. 6éA-v-yvo-v ‘foundation’ (mpo- 
Oé\-v-pvo-s ‘from the foundations, Homer) as in the synonymous Skt. 
dhar-d-na-m and a metaphysical one in a-Gep-és (dvdnrov, avécvov Hesych., 
cp. Skt. dhér-ma-s‘ right,’ ‘ custom’), to which belongs d6eupns (Theogn. 
733, Bergk*®=6eav pndev dmdpevos) and in the closely allied words 
evOpeiv’ huddocetv, Opn-cKw’ vod, Opd-oKew" dva-pyynokew ‘to cling to a 
thing’ (Hesych.): 6p%-cxo-s (or Opy-oxé-s) ‘pious’ first in the N. T., 
but Herodt. has 6pnox-ed-ew, Opnox-nin, with the shorter by-forms 
Ope-cxn’ dyn, wavra eddaBovpérn (cp. religio, religiosus No. 538), 
and Ope-cxd-s" repirrds (cp. superstitiosus), Seoidaipov in Hesych. Oédew, 
edehev ‘be willing’ has been put with this group. — An expanding 
gh produced from the rt. dhar, the Skt. darh ‘make fast,’ mid. ‘be 
fast ’=Zd. darez, whence comes derez-ra ‘fast,’ along with the Ch§l. 
driiza-ti ‘hold’ (cp. No. 167). Perhaps Hesychius’s 6péEaro: épvddéaro, 
éo<Baobn and the OLat. forc-ti-s (‘frugi et bonus’), later for-ti-s, with 
fore-tu-m, hore-tu-m (‘pro bono dicebatur’ Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 102) belong 
here. Cp. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 171. 
317. Root epe Opé-o-pvar ery aloud, Op0-o0-s noise, Op%j-vos 
dirge, Opd-Ao-s (OpvAAo-s) murmuring, tumult, 
Odpv-Bo-s noise, Tov-Opv-s murmuring, Tov-Oop- 
vé@m murmur. 
Skt. dhrdn-d-mi make a sound (intens. dan-dhran- 
Goth. drun-ju-s Pbdyyos, NHG. droenen drone. 
Picfet ‘Ztschr.’ v. 323, Benf. ii. 265, ‘Ztschr.’ 11. 228. Otherwise 
Pott W. i. 1028. —It is true that the Skt. dhran is unauthenticated: 
— O6pavak xnbnv Adxoves (Hesych.) forcibly suggests the OHG. treno 
‘drone’ and rev-Opy-vn, tev-Opn-Sov ‘a kind of bee’ (Fick 1°. 639). 
Perhaps too rep-Opeia ‘ empty talk’ (Heinr. Schmidt ‘Synon.’ i. 168) is | 
of the same origin. — This word reminds us of the Ir. derdrethar (dep.) 
‘it cries,’ ‘ resounds,’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 309 


318. Ouvy-d-rnp (st. Ovyarep). — Skt. duh-i-ta (st. duh-i- 
tar), Zd. dugh-dhar. — Goth. dath-tar, OHG. 258 
toh-tar. — ChSl. dis-ti (st. dis-ter for diig-ter). 
Lith. duk-té (st. dukter) daughter. 


Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ i. 299, Pott W. iii. 868, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 115.— I 
agree with Grassmann ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 126 in regarding dhugh-atar as 
the primitive form. Of the two aspirates the first is preserved in Gk., 
the second in Skt. and Zd., and the Gothic form points to an earlier 
dh. Lassen’s etymology then from the Skt. duh (for dhugh) ‘milk’ 
—‘the milker’— is not impossible ; Bopp prefers to give the mean- 
ing ‘suckling,’ as we did above to filzus (No. 307). Cp. Pictet i. 
353. Quite otherwise Schweizer ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 306, otherwise again 
Benfey ‘ preface to Fick?’ vii., Fick i°, 638. 


319. Ovpa, Ovp-e-rTpo-v door, gate, Avpacc foris, Oupi-s 
door or window aperture, @up-ed-s door-stone, 
Oaipé-s hinge, axle-tree. 

Skt. dudra-m, dvdr f. door, gate; Ved. dur (f.) door, 
dir-ja-s belonging to the door, to the house, 
déirja-s (nom. pl.) dwelling. — Zd. dvare-m gate, 
palace. 

Lat. for-é-s, foris, foras.— Umbr. Ose. vero gate. 

Goth. dawir 6vpa, OHG. tor. 

ChSl. dvir-t Ovpa, dvor-% aula, Lith. dwr-ys (pl.) 
fores. 

Cymr. doreu valvae, Corn. darat ostium, Ol. dorus 
porta, limen (Z?, 238, 285, 1078). 


Bopp ‘G1. Pott ii. 1, 15, Benf. ii. 276, Fick i8. 640, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 
124.— The shortest Gk. form is contained in the Arcad. 6vp-6a dis- 
cussed under No, 263b.— Greek, Latin, and Teutonic point to an 
initial dh, Slavo-Lithuanian does not oppose it. I conclude therefore 
the primary form to have been dhur, dhvar, and the Skt. to have lost 
the aspirate (cp. Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii, 95).— @aipd-s comes from 
Oap-.os for 6Fap-wos, and corresponds therefore to the Skt. plur. diéir-jas 
for dvar-jas, for which the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ conjectures the primary mean- 
ing ‘door-post ;) the Umbr. and Osc. vero has lost its initial consonant 
(Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 177). Otherwise Pott W. i. 1010. The root is 
obscuré, for the only certain meaning for the Skt. dhvar is ‘ bend,’ 
‘cause to fall” Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 328 tries another course; cp. 
Brugman ‘Stud.’ ix, 394. 


320. Root ev @v-@ rush, rage, sacrifice, @0-v-m (dud-a, 


310 BOOK II. 


duvd-¢w) rage, rave, storm, 06-vo-s press, crowd, 
6v-edXAa stormwind, Ovd-(d)s, Ovi-d-s a Bacchaten, 
6v-y6-s courage, passion, feeling. — diya, Ov-cia 
sacrifice, OU-os incense, Ou7j-e.-s fragrant, 00-po-v 
(6-0-5) thyme. | 

Skt. dha (dhii-nd-mi) shake, move swiftly hither and 
thither, fan into a flame, dhi-md-s smoke, dhu- 
li-s dust, st. du-dh (=du-dhu) to be vehement, 
wild. — Zd. dun-man mist, vapour. 

Lat. fui-mu-s, sub-fi-o fumigate, sub-ft-men. 

OHG. tun-s-t storm, press, crowd, Goth. daun-s, 
odor, OHG. towm vapor, fumus, AS. du-s-¢ dust. 
ChSl. du-na-ti spirare, dy-mi% fumus, du-chu spiritus, 

du-sa anima, Lith. dw-mai (pl.) smoke. 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott i123, 462, W. 1. 1067, Benf. ii. 271 ff, Grimm 
‘Gesch.’ 404, Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ 1.157. Cp. above pp. 60, 115. — 
The primary meaning was that of ‘a violent movement,’ and of this 
there appear three modifications : (1) rush — excite, (2) smoke — fumi- 
gate, (3) sacrifice; the metaphysical meaning comes from (1). (Cp. 
No. 36.) With respect to the third meaning Aristarchus’s doctrine 
that @icac in Homer does not mean oddga but Oupracae (Lehrs 
‘Aristarchus’ p. 92) is important, as it helps us to see clearly the 
transition from (2) to (3). Cp. Theophrastus mept edocBeias ed. by 
Bernays p. 40: ékx ris Ovupudcews Oucias exaddovy. — The intimate intercon- 
nexion of these different uses is shown by the differing meaning of the 
Indo-Germ. dhi-ma-s, the correlative of which comes under the head of 
the second modification in four families of speech, under the first only 
in Gk. Plato ‘Crat.’ p. 419 already guessed the physical meaning of 
Oupo-s — Pups amd ths Ovoews kal Céoews ths vyns.—I cannot accept 
the wider combinations of Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iii. 434. On the other 
hand there is to be seen in Gk. an expansion of the root by o in 6ve- 
ty-s, Ovo-rd-s (= Ouids), Oic-6-da (pl.) (cp. the ChSl. dych-a-ti ‘ flare’ 
with ch = s), perhaps too in 6ic-avo-s ‘ tassel’ [cp. Eng. bob]. 0€-e1o-v 
‘sulphur,’ ‘sulphur fumes’ (contr. Oeio-y) comes without doubt from 
the second meaning and is to be derived from a lost 6eF-os. — The 
Skt. dhip, expanded from dhi, = Gk. rid-o has been discussed 
under No. 251. Pott compares moreover the Lat. fav-u-s ‘ honey- 
comb’ (?), fav-illa, fi-nu-s, fi-mu-s and foe-t-eo. On the latter words 
cp. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 179.—The Lat. tis is clearly borrowed from the 
Greek and proves nothing at all as to the Latin substitute for the 
aspirate. — The Skt. hu ‘sacrifice’ belongs to No. 203. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. Sill 


321. Root kve KevO-w (Kv0-ov, Ké-Kv6-ov) hide, conceal, 
xed0-os, kevO-uev hidden depth. 

Skt. rt. gudh (guidh-ja-mi) veil, clothe (unauthen- 
ticated), guh (guh-a-mi) veil, conceal, gih-a@ am- 
bush, hollow, guh-a secretly, guth-ja-s secret, 
goh-a-s ambush. — Zd. guz conceal. 

Lat. cust0(d)-s. 

AS. hgd-an hide. 

Corn. cuthe, Cymr. cuddio celare (Z?. 142). 

Bopp ‘G1., Pott W. ui. 782, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 160, Fick 1°. 50.— 
The initial g is softened in Skt. and Zd. from %, while acc. to Albr. 
Weber (‘Omina u. Portenta’ p. 343) the Skt. forms kuh-a@ ‘ mist,’ 
hkith-ana@ ‘hypocrisy,’ kuh-u% ‘new-moon,’ have preserved the original 
sound; the / at the end of the root is weakened in Skt. as in other 
cases from dh. — On custd(d)-s cp. my essay on the traces of a Lat. 
o-conjugation ‘Symbola Philol. Bonn.’ i. p. 280, Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 133, 
somewhat otherwise i7. 355, Fréhde ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 194. 


322. wéd-v wine, peOv-m am drunk, pebd-cx-m make 

drunk, pé0-7 drunkenness, pé6v-co-s drunk. 

Skt. mddh-u something sweet, sweet drink, honey, 260 
mddhu-s sweet, Zd. madhu honey. 

OS. med-o, OHG. met-u mead. 

ChSl. med-% (m.) honey, wine, Lith. mid-v-s honey. 

Olr. med mead, mese ebrius, mesce drunkenness ; 
Cymr. medw ebrius (Z?. 130). 

Bopp ‘Gl., Pott i*. 245, Stokes ‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ 116. — The 
change in the meaning is noticeable: it was originally as in Skt. the: 
more general one of a pleasant drink. Cp. Pictet 1. 408, ‘ Ztschr.’ 
vy. 323, Hehn® 136.— Ir. mesce from med, like wsce ‘water’ from ud 
(No. 300), med ‘mead’ is for * medu. 


823. picbd-s pay. — Zd. mizhda pay. — Goth. mizd-d 
picbds, AS. meord, méd |Eng. meed|.— ChSI. 
mizda (f.) pics. 

Pott W. i. 148, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 413, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 126, Diefenb. 
ii. 67, Benf. ii. 33. — Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ xiii. 349 justly calls these words 
of unknown origin. Justi ‘ Handb. des Zd.’ p. 233 regards the word. 
as a compound of the rt. dha. [Cp. ‘Greek Verb’ p. 507, Vaniéek 
‘Et. Dict.’ p. 379.] Then we might state the following proportion ; 
puc-ds : ped (No. 286) = oOo : £6, wed of course in the sense of measure. 
Another combination worth notice is given by Delbriick ‘ Ztgchr. 


312 BOOK II. 


f. d. Philol.’ i. 10, who goes to the Zd. myazda ‘ flesh used in sacri- 
fice.’ —Cp. above p. 89. 


324. Root 60 &6-é-w (€-w-ca) thrust, év- -oat-x dor, évv-oot- 
ya.o-s Earth-shaker, eiv-oaf-dvddAo-s shaking its 
leaves. 

Skt. rt. vadh strike, apa-vadh, prati-vadh strike 
back, avert. — Zd. vad strike, vddhay strike back. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. iv. 866.— apa-vadh is just like dr-ooe A 97 
(Arist.). The rt. vddh, as itis now written in the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ (no longer 
badh), has such similar meanings, that it cannot be a separate root 
from vadh. — Delbriick ‘Ztschr.’ xvi. 266 connects with the Skt. 
vddh-ar ‘storm, ‘bolt,’ Zd. vad-are ‘instrument for striking,’ the 
AS. veder, Germ. Wetter ‘storm,’ ‘ weather,’ which accordingly has 
arrived gradually at its neutral meaning of weather from its original 
one of ‘thunderstorm’ or ‘ rain-storm.’ — On the initial in Gk. see Ebel 
‘Ztschr.’ iv. 166. évvoot: év-Foow:: Aeol. E€vvos: Corcyr. &€vFos, eivoot- 
like the Homeric eivos. — I do not venture to place 86-o-ya under this 
head on account of the same difficulties which prevented Buttmann 
‘Lexil.’ i. 270 from doing s0, especially on account of 06) (Hesych. 
dpovris apa), d0éwv (ib. ppovri¢wr), dOua (Nicand. dupa). I omit the 
Lat. ddi on account of the Armenian at-el ‘hate’ discovered by Hiibsch- 
mann (‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 18). 


325. od6-ap (st. ovOa(p)r). —Skt. uidh-ar, idh-as, dh-an. 
— Lat. wb-er.— AS. adder, OHG. dtar udder esi ae 
Euter). — Lith. udr-oju suckle. 


Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Pott i*. 106. — With Benfey i i. 261 I take adhar to be 
the primary avn and consider the r in od@apr as accessory. — What 
is the case with the Lat. aber ‘ abundance,’ and the adj. aber ‘ abun- 
dant?’ Have we here merely a metaphor as in od6ap dpovpns (I 141), 
or are both meanings developed from one root which we do not 

261 know? After Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 77 had separated the adj. aber 
with its subst. wber=ubertas from aber ‘udder,’ deriving the former 
from oib-er and the rt. aidh (Skt. édh ‘flourish,’ ‘be happy’), the 
latter from the rt. wdh, Roth ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 221 again connects the 
two words wher and tries to establish vadh, vandh ‘ to stuff full’ as 
their root, with which he connects also the Gk. év@os ‘ dung-heap,’ and 
ovOurevew ‘ stuff ;’ cp. Van. 880. | 


326. Root tevé mevO-epé-s father-in-law, brother-in-law, 
son-in-law, 7ev6-epa¢ mother-in-law, 7veio-a string, 
rope. 

Skt. bandh (badh-nd-mi) bind, fetter, unite, bandhd-s, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 313 


bindh-a-na-m band, union, bdndh-u-s union, con- 
nexion, relation, bandhu-taé relationship. — Zd. 
band bind, bafida (m.) band. 

Goth. binda bind, band-i decpos, OHG. bast bast. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. iv. 855, Benf. ii. 94, Fick i°. 689. — With 
Grassmann ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 120 (cp. above p. 49) we must consider 
bhandh to be the Indo-Germ. root, from which by the regular loss 
of the aspirates in Zend and the Teutonic languages arose band. In 
Gk.-it was hardened into ¢evd, and then, owing to the dislike felt to 
the conjunction of two aspirates at the beginning of two consecutive 
syllables, became wev6. The Lat. of-fend-ix ‘strap,’ ‘ knot,’ of-fend-t- 
men-tu-m (Fest. p. 205), clearly belong here, as is pointed out by Joh. 
Schmidt ‘Voc. i. 127. Fick ii’. 416 finds Lithuanian cognates in 
band-a ‘ hearth,’ bendra-s ‘shared in common.’ — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
332 connects with this root Olr. buden ‘ troop,’ Cymr. byddin ‘ band,’ 
‘troop, OCymr. bodiniou ‘ phalanges’ (Z?. 826). 


327. Root m6 ze/6-w persuade, mei0-o-war obey, mé-mr018-a 
trust, mio-ri-s faith, me6-d persuasion, 7rei-ca 
obedience. 

Lat. fid-o, jid-é-s, fid-u-s, Dius Fidius, foed-us, 
foideratet. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. iv.874, Benf. 11. 95.— The aspirates have behaved 
as in the case of No. 326. The root is the same as 326 only « is 
weakened to «. So Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 227, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 120. 
Both conjecture justly that the Graeco-Italic rt. bdidh is weakened 
from bha(n)dh, and that its primary notion is ‘unite.’ The use of the 
Skt. compounds x7-bandh and nir-bandh and bandh-aka-s a ‘ pledging,’ 
‘promise,’ is analogous. Fulda ‘ Unters.’ 158 points out that meiOew 
in Homer frequently required the addition of @updv, ppevas, which, how- 
ever, is entirely dispensed with in the case of the middle ‘ obey,’ 
‘follow,’ and the intransitive perf. rémola=confido. Here we must 
supply the connecting links ‘let oneself be bound, ‘ join oneself,’ ‘ feel 
oneself fast bound,’ as also in the Lat. fidere=eideo@au. The physical 
meaning is most discernible in wi6-o-s ‘ cask ’ (as being bound together) 
with the by-form @.d-dx-vy (Att.=16-dk-yn) ‘little cask,’ compared by 
Fick i°. 689 with the Lat. fid-élia, AS. bod-ig.—foedus : ‘bind’: : pax: 
rt. pak (No. 343). — Fick i*. 699 and Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 388 connect 
neidew with the Goth. beidan ‘bide,’ baidjan ‘ compel.’ 


328. Root mv@ muv6-év-0-pat, mevO-0-pat search, ask, rvo- 
Tl-§, TeD-ol-s, TMUG-wa question, 7revO-yy enquirer, 


Spy. 


262 


314 BOOK II. 


Skt. rt. budh (bodh-a-mi, biidh-j-é) to awake, remark, 
become aware of, bodh-aja-mi awaken, give to 
know, inform, bud-dhi-s (for budh-ti-s) insight, 
perception, view. — Zd. bud remark, awaken. 

OS. an-biod-an bid, let know, Goth. ana-biud-an 
émitdooev, mapayyédrey, fatr-biud-an forbid, 
and bid, OHG. piot-an offer, present [Eng. bid, 
Norse bud]. 

ChSl. bid-é-ti vigilare, bud-i-ti expergefacere; Lith. 
bund-w inf. budéti (intr.), bud-in-u (trans.) wake, 
bud-ru-s wakeful. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iv. 885 f., who rightly gives the idea ‘ wake,’ 
‘awake,’ as the primary one, whence was developed in Greek the 
notion of ‘ wakeful perception’ (av6-é-cOa become ‘ awake,’ ‘ clear’), in 
Skt. and Zd. rather the continuous one of being awake, and therewith 
of knowledge. With Homer the derived meaning ‘enquire’ (e. g. « 88) 
was only coming into use, and hence Aristarchus explained mvééo0a 
by dxodoa (Lehrs ‘ Arist.2’ 148). It is strange that bud in Zend 
means also ‘smell,’ in compounds of the causative actually ‘fumi- 
gate.’ — Like the two previous roots this one had an aspirate at both 
ends originally: bhudh (Grassmann ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 120). Hence the 
Delphic name of a month Biows is remarkable: it is explained by 
Plutarch ‘ Quaest. Graec.’ c. 9 as Ivovos “ev 6 muotidvrat kat muvOavovrat 
tov Geov,” and is supported by other instances in this dialect of 8 for 
(Maittaire ‘ Dialecti’ p. 140 a).— On the meanings of the Teutonic 
words which may be referred to the rt. bhudh see Delbriick ‘ Ztschr. 
f. d. Ph.’ i. 9. — Benary’s comparison of the Lat. putare (‘ Lautl.’ 193) 
is mistaken; as am-putare, putator, putamen, lanam putare (cp. also 
Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 216) show, putare is a derivative of putus ‘clean’ 
(No. 373), and accordingly means primarily ‘to clear up.’ 


329. mv6-pynv (st. rvOuev) bottom, stock of a tree, rivd-a€ 
bottom. — Skt. budh-nd-s, Zd. bu-na bottom. — 
Lat. fundu-s.— OHG. bodam, ON. bot-n, [Germ. 
Boden]|.— Ir. bond, bonn solea, Cymr. bon stem, 
base. 


Pott W. iv. 872, Benf. ii. 67, Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 320, Stokes ‘Ir, 
Gl. 96, Grassmann xii. 114, with whom I regard bhudh as the stem. — 
On rivdaé, a kind of diminutive with an added strengthening v which 
in its turn accounts for the 4, cp. Lobeck ‘Proleg.’ 447 and below 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 315 


p. 527. — Our stem bhu-dh seems to me to be a formation from the 
shorter rt. bhu ‘ grow,’ and that accordingly ‘ground’ and ‘root’ get 
their name from their being the ‘place of growth’ and ‘a growth’ 
respectively; cp. Oly. bunad ‘origo,’ Cymr. bonad ‘basement,’ st. 
bunata (Z?, 223, 801). So the Skt. baw ‘earth’ comes from the rt. 
bhu. Otherwise Fick i°. 702. Cp. Corssen i’. 145. — Bv6-6-s, Bucas-s, 
BdOpo-s are discussed under No. 635. 


I 


A Greek z corresponds to an Indo-Germanic p, Sanskrit p 
or ph, Zend p or f, Latin and Slavo-Lithuanian p, Teutonic f or 
(in the middle of a word) b. In Keltic p disappears, and is 
replaced by e¢, ch only in the group pt. 


330. d7é from, aw forth, back.—Skt. dpa away, forth, 
back, as a prep. with abl. away from. Zd. apa 
with abl. from, apa-na distant. — Lat. ab (a, af- 
au-), abs. — Goth. af dé, e€, OHG. aba, fo-na 
far, from. 

Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ iii. 492, Pott i% 435.— The connexion of dd 
with the locative form Skt. dpi Gk. emi is probable in spite of the 
difference of meaning (cp. dvra and dyti No. 204).— jrepo in jrep-or- 
ev-o ‘talk over,’ ‘deceive’ (subst. jrep-on-ev-s, nmep-orev-rn-s) corre- 
sponds to the Skt. and Zend apara (derived from apa)=Goth. afar 
‘later, ‘otherwise,’ ‘different’ (Benf. 1.129). The second element in 
the word is rt. Fer, whence é6~=vow; there is the Ionic lengthening 
of a into n, as in jvepuders, Sovpnverées, etc. The verb therefore means 
properly ‘to speak otherwise’ in a bad sense, that is, otherwise than 
one believes it to be, and the nmepomevtns 18 6s x erepov pev KevOn evi 
peciv, Addo Se city 1 313. Schmalfeld ‘ Philol.’ xxxiv. 594 compares the 
dr. eip. kNor-orevew, which he explains ‘ to speak fine-spun talk.’ (Cp. 
No. 63 b.) — Weber (‘Ind. Studien’ ii. 406) has a conjecture on the 
origin of the particle. 


331. Rt. dpm “Apm-viat, &pr-n a kind of bird of prey, 
dpt-a€, a&pm-adéo-s grasping, greedy, dp7-d¢(-o 
rob, apmwdy-n hook, rake, apmray-7 robbery. 

Lat. rap-io, rap-ax, rap-idu-s, rap-tor, rap-ina. 
For Gr. y = Lat. ¢ cp. p. 533. — The rough breathing seems to be 
unorganic or a reminiscence of paz. Otherwise explained by Pott 


316 BOOK II. 


‘Ztschr, vi. 334, i2. 216. — Pott it. 258 (otherwise in W. v. 160) and 
Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 154 connect rap-io with the Skt. Jup lwmp-ami ‘break 
to pieces,’ ‘rob.’ This root underlies the Gr. Avr and Lat. rwmpo (No. 
341), but it shows so many meanings analogous to these of our root, 
that we must certainly assume an early duplicate form rap rup (cp. 
supra p. 56 f., Joh. Schmidt ‘Voe.’ ii. 292). The rt. rup in Zend 
means ‘to rob,’ and may unquestionably be compared with the Goth. 
bi-raub-dn. More from the Teutonic languages in Diefenb. ‘ Wtb.’ 
uu. 164. 

332. dpm-n sickle. — Lat. sarp-o prune, sar-men, sar- 

mentu-m twigs. — ChSl. sr%ip-% sickle. 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 302, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 121; Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 129, iv. 
22 f. Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 32, ‘Nachtr.’ 70.— For sarpo cp. Fest. pp. 322, 
348.— On the strength of the Germ. scarf by the side of sarf Kuhn 
assumes a rt. skarp, which by the loss of & became sarp, and dpm (cp. 
No. 105), and by the loss of s became harp (No. 42). 


264 333. Root FeAtt €A7r-@ cause to hope, éAz-o-uar I hope 
(pf. €-oAm-a), €Am-i-s, éAm-wpy hope, édAm-i-¢@ I 
hope. 


Lat. volop, volup, volup-i-s, volup-tda(t)-s. 

The F of Fedm is established by ¢oAma, ééAmero — cp. also Hesych. 
podmis eAmis with ddnis. Knoés 80. In Pindar we still find mapa éd- 
wida (Pindar ed. Boeckh ii. 2, 310). We have also the form Velparun 
=’EArjvep on an Etruscan mirror (‘ Denkmiiler, Forsch. u. Ber.’ 1864 
p. 153).—volup Ennius ‘Annal.’ 247 (Vahlen) ‘ multa volup.’ The 
word is probably shortened from volup-i-s which apart from its anap- 
tyctic vowel (cp. p. 727 f. below) quite corresponds to the Gr. eAmis. 
Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 209. The same stem occurs in the superl. 
aédn-v-.oro-s (Pind.) ‘ the most lovely’ and in é-adz-vo-s ‘desired’ (cp. 
repr-vé-s), which in their meaning approach still more nearly the ~ 
Latin words. There is algo ddmadaioy (Hesych. dyarnrév), for which 
we should perhaps write ddmradéov (cp. dpmadéos, rapBadéos). a Doric 
for e Ahrens ‘ Dial. Dor.’ 113. — For the shorter root of this stem see 
above p. 60. 

334. éumi-s gnat.— Lat. api-s — OHG. imbi bee. 

Pott u'. 74, Benf. u. 75, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 55, 59, Lottner 
x1. 166, Fick 11°. 19.— The OHG. bia-, NHG. biene, and Lith. b7-¢é, 
bi-t-is ‘bee’ are also referred to this form, by assuming a loss of the 
initial vowel. The neglect of the correspondence of mutes is ex- 


plained by the nasal. A connexion with mivo is more easily asserted 
than proved. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 317 


335. émi on, to. — Skt. dpi (pi) as adv. further, also, 
as prefix to, after. Zd. aipi as adv. also, even, 
as prefix, to, as prep. with acc. after, on, with 
instrum. to, with loc. at the side of. — Lat. ob. 
— Lith. apé about, over (with acc.), -p7i (after gen.) 
with, api-, ap- in the meaning of the Germ. be-. 

Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gr.’ iii. 490, Pott i?. 506, Hiibschmann ‘ Zur Casus- 
lehre’ 305. — It is worth noticing that dpi as a preposition with a 
case following it does not occur in Skt., while in its not very common 
use as a prefix, e.g. in api-dha-na-m ‘ cover’ (cp. éni-Oe-ua), api-ga-s= 
émi-yovo-s it closely corresponds to emi, The adverbial use of api re- 
appears in the Gk. ém-ei, where emi is the anticipated particle of the 
apodosis, in the sense of ‘then’ (‘Elucidations of the Greek Grammar’ 
[E. T.] p. 215). — In the case of Lat. 0b the meaning ad (cp. obviam, 
obire, obdere=énibciva, oboedio, cp. émaxovo, opportunus) came out more 
clearly in the earlier language (Fest. p. 178). Cp. Corssen ii”. 1026. 
— Lith. ap- in compounds: cp. émiypyoos ‘gilded over,’ obawrare 
(Appul.), Lith. ap-duksinw ‘I gild. — With regard to form ap-7 is 
related to ap-a as a locative to an instrumental (cp. azé No. 330), but 
both have crystallized into adverbs, just as the Lat. abl. apud (old 
by-form apor), which is hence in meaning connected with emi, Corssen 
i’. 197 now agrees with Pott in regarding apud as a compound of 
apt and ad, but without convincing me.— As to the origin of the 
word we may note the Skt. api-tvd-m ‘ distribution,’ ‘ share.’ 

336. éz-ow (st. é-o7r) hoopoe. — Lat. up-up-a. 

Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iii. 69.— The form is reduplicated, in Greek by 
means of the e usual in the perfect, in Latin as in to-tondi by the 
same vowel, wp-up-a for an older op-op-a. Cp. dmapés' ero, rd spveor 
Hes, Fick n*. 19, 

337. émrd, €Bdopo-s. —Skt. saptan, Zd. haptan seven, 
sap-ta-mds the seventh. — Lat. septem, septumu-s. 
— Goth. stbun. — ChSI. sedmi, Lith. septyn-i seven, 
ChSI. sedmyy, Lith. septinta-s, sék-ma-s the seventh. 
— Olr. secht septem, sechtmad septimus, Cymr. 
seith septem. 

Bopp ‘GI.,’ Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 187, etc. — For the weakening in the 
ordinal cp. dydoos and p. 536. The change of the labial into a & in 
the Lith. sékma-s is highly irregular.—Ought we to consider sak, sap 
‘follow’ as the root (p. 460)? Kdlle in the ‘ Gott. Nachr.’ 1866 p. 
318 notices that the Turkish word for seven means follower. — For 
the guttural in Ir, secht ep. Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ vill. 16. 


266 


318 BOOK It. 


338. Root épn ép7r-w (impf. efp7r-o-v) I go, creep, épm-v-¢w 
I creep, crawl, ép7r-er6-v creeping thing, ép7r-n(7)-s 
tetter (on the skin), 2apmnddr (2), 6om-n€é shoot (2). 

Skt. rt. sarp (sdérp-d-mt) creep, crawl, sarp-d-s serpens. 
Lat. serp-o, serp-en(t)-s, serp-ula. — Pro-serp-ina (2). 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. v. 207, Benf. 1. 62.— éprew is far from meaning 
only ‘creep.’ But the proper meaning appears in all three languages 
to be that of ‘an even motion along the ground.’—The Lat. répo pro- 
bably arose by metathesis from * srép-o, for sv is not an allowable com- 
bination of sounds. So the Zd. rap ‘ go,’ which Justi indentifies with 
Skt. sarp. Lottner (‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 188) quotes Lett. rahpt ‘ creep.’ 
Otherwise Joh. Schmidt 1i. 354, Fick i*. 740. The question whether 
Proserpina is a genuine Lat. form, or borrowed from the Gr. Hepoepovy 
has been discussed with reference to the old form of the gen. Prosep- 
nats (Ritschl ‘Suppl. prise. latin.’ 1. p. xiv) by Usener ‘ Rh. Mus,’ xxii. 
436, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xvi. 106, Zeuss xvil. 436; but I fail to find 
anywhere a decisive argument. 

339. Root Aaum Adum-o I shine, gleam, Aaum-r7p lamp, 
Aapm-d(d)-s torch, Aapmr-pd-s gleaming, Adpm-n 
scum, Adm-n scum, slime. —”O-Avymr-o-s (2). — 
Lat. limp-idu-s. — Lith. lép-s-nd flame. 

Bopp ‘On the language of the Old Prussians’ p. 40. — The com- 
parison of Skt. dip ‘ gleam,’ is quite baseless. — The v in ”O-Avumo-s is 
Aeolic. — Lat. imp-idu-s is for lemp-idu-s. As the root appears 
without the nasal in Adz-n, perhaps also lép-or, lép-idu-s (cp. luculen- 
tus) — which cannot be connected with Gr. Aex-rd-s, —and even lép- 
us as the ‘light, grey animal’ (a Sicil. Agropis quoted by Varro 
‘L. LY v.§ 101), might belong here. Lanter-na, only in late times 
laterna (Biicheler ‘Rhein. Mus,’ xviii. 393, Schmitz xix. 301) is 
evidently derived from Aayrrnp. The s in the Lith. word is inserted 
(Schleicher ‘Lith. Sprache’ 1. 120). Bugge in ‘ Bezz. Beitr.’ iii. 104 
adds the ON. letpt-r ‘ lightning,’ which, like the Lith. dép-s-na, has 
the 7. 

340. Root Aut Aim-a, Aiz-os fat, Auw-apd-s fatty, shining, 
Alm-ap-ns persevering, eager, Aimap-é-w I hold 
fast, entreat, d-Aeip-w I anoint, drAep-ap, drerpa 
salve. 

Skt. lip (limp-a-mi), Ved. rip besmear, anu-lip anoint, 
lép-a-s, lép-a-na-m ointment. ’ 
ChSl. dép-i-ti conglutinare, lép-% viscum, lép-d% de- 
corus, Lith. limp-w inf. lip-ti stick, lip-d-s sticky. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 319 


Bopp ‘ G1. Pott W. v. 180, W. i. 608, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 121. — Aiwa 
addeiheoOa in Thuc. i. 6 and elsewhere removes all doubt as to the 
vowel elided in the Hom. Aim’, though Kissling goes wrong ‘ Ztschr.’ 
Xvil. 201. In d-deip-w we may easily recognize prothetic ad and 
aspiration. The latter perhaps also occurs in Add-s* ovKopdyrns, 
pewdards ‘dirty fellow, Awdedvew drarav ‘trick’ (cp. Germ. ansch- 
mieren) Hesych.— Lat. lippus Pauli ‘ Ztschr.’ xviii. 10 maintains to 
be a genuine Latin form for lipu-s. But adeps is borrowed from 
adevpa (Benf. ii. 122) with d for 7 as in Capitodiwm (Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 
276). Op. ddépecor oréati, ddeparicov’ ddewyov Hesych. — Millenhoff 
regards also OHG.lébara ‘jecur’ and libir-meri, ge-liber-dt ‘coagulatum,’ 
‘concretum’ as related, while Pauli (‘Korpertheile’ 18) connects lébara 
with the Hom. Aamdpn, ‘ flank.’ -—- The meaning passes from that of 
‘fat’ into that of ‘ brightness’ on the one hand, and to that of ‘stick- 
ing’ on the other. Plato ‘Crat. 427 b: 76 Xuapdv kal Td Koddddes. 
Fick 1°. 754 connects the Goth. bi-leib-an ‘to cleave,’ ‘to remain,’ 
with this root, not with Gr. A¢cjitw (p. 462). The Lat. ligu-eo on 
the other hand is related rather to the Zend ric ‘ pour out.’ 

341. Root Aum Aum-pd-s troublesome, Avz-7 trouble, pain, 
duTr-é-@ trouble, A\vwn-pdé-s annoying. 

Skt. lup (lump-a-mi) break to pieces, beat, damage, 
lup-ta-s destroyed, lup decay. 

Lat. ru-m-p-o (2), rapes. 

ON. ryf rumpo. 

Lit. ruip-é-ti trouble, rip-mdn it troubles me, rup-u-s 
anxious. 

Pott W. v. 166, Benf. ii. 4, Fick i°. 746 f. — Many difficulties still 
present themselves in this grouping, on individual points. Still we 
may perhaps derive the notion of ‘troubling’ and of ‘troublesome’ from 
the more physical idea of ‘ breaking’ as above under No. 148 and No. 
284. With regard to this, it is worth noticing that in Homer we 
find only Avmpd-s as an epithet of poor soil, while \vr-y with its deri- 
vatives does not occur till later. — For the interchange of r and / see 
p. 547 ff.— Cp. on No. 331. 

342. Root vert é-vevr-.d-s sister’s son or brother's son (fem. 
-@), vérr-o6-es offspring, descendants. 

Skt. ndpat, ndp-tar, scion, grand-child, fem. napti 
daughter, grand-daughter, Zd. naptar, napat des- 
cendant, napt-i (f.) kinship, naptya (n.) family. 

Lat. nepd(t)-s, fem. nept-i-s (by-form leptis Loewe 
Prodr. 340). 


267 


320 BOOK II. 


ON. nefi brother, OHG. nefo nepos, cognatus, ON. nift 
sister, OHG. OL neptis. — Goth. ne m. 
nith-j6 f. cvyyevas. 

ChSl. neti filius fratris vel sororis, Bohem. neti (st. 
neter) niece. 

OlIr. necht neptis, Corn. noit neptis; Ir. niae (gen. 
niath) filius sororis, Cymr. ney, nei (plur. neyeynt, 
nyeint) fratris vel sororis filius (Z?. 293). 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott ii%, 821, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 168, Kuhn ‘Ind. Studien’ 
i. 326, Benf. ‘Samavéda Worterb.’ 106, where proofs are given of the 
more general meaning of the Skt. word, ‘ offspring,’ ‘ child,’ e. g. napat 
apam ‘child of the waters.’ Precisely the same phrase occurs in 
Zend. Fick 1°. 647. Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 125 and Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ ex- 
plain the Goth, and Slav. forms by the loss of the labial. — d-vew-16-s 
is for d-verr-.é-s and is rightly explained by Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ i, 293 and 
Max Miller ‘Oxford Essays’ (1856) p. 21 as ‘ fellow-nephew’ 
(Mitenkel), as it were con-nepot-iu-s.— As to the much-discussed 
verrodes (8 404 haxar vérodes Kad7js “AXoovdrns) I start from the fact that 
Alexandrian poets used the word in the sense of dméyovo.: Theocr, 
XVil. 25 dOdvaror dé Kkadedyrat €ol vérrodes, Cleo Sic. (Bergk ‘Poet. Lyr.*’ 
p. 666) Bptapol Topyopdvov vérodes, Callim. ap. Schol. Pind. ‘Isthm.’ ii. 9 
6 Ketos ‘YAAixou vérous. They certainly would not have ventured to do 
this had there not been an old tradition in favour of this meaning. 
kata Tia yA@ooay of andyovor. says Eustath. on ‘Od.’ p. 1502, 52. 
Hence we must not be misled by the opposite views of other gramma- 
rians in the scholia to the ‘Od.,’ in Apollon. ‘ Lex.,’ ete., but we must 
assume an ancient vérodes=nepotes, the 6 being explained perhaps by 
the resemblance in sound to wddes. Is the gloss of Hesych. vedmrpar 
viav Ovyarépes possibly a corruption of vémrpiact The difference in 
quantity between vérodes and nepdtes is the less surprising, inasmuch 

we find side by side in the Eastern languages the three stems napdt, 
napat and napt (napt-r). — For the loss of the p in Ir. niae (st. nepat) 
and for Ir. necht for nept cp. Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 16. 


343. Root mar myy-vu-pe (€-rdéy-n-v) fix, mHy-pa joined 
work, stand, wny-0-s firm, strong, méy-o-s, mdx-v7 
rime, frost, réy-n trap, snare, daa-aXo-s peg, nail. 

Skt. pac-a-s snare, noose, pacd-ja-mi bind, pag-rd-s 
fat, stout. — Zd. pag bind. 

Lat. pac-i-sc-or, pax, pac-i-o(n), pac-tio(n), pang-o 
(pag-o), pig-nus, pa-lu-s — (con, dis) -pe-sc-o? 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 321 


Goth. fah-an catch, fulla-fah-jan ixavov rrovety, fagr-s 
evOeros, OHG. fuog-a, ga-fuogi aptus, ga-fag-jan 
satisfacere, fah (Germ. Fach) department. 


Pott 1. 2, 551, Benf. 11. 90. ‘ Ind. lect. Kil. aest.’ 1857 p. ix. where 
I believe I have proved that pak was the primary form, and pag weak- 
ened from it. — From the former is derived maocado-s (for max-jado-s). 
In Latin both occur side by side (Corssen i’. 393), the Gothic forms 268 
presuppose 4.—As even in Skt. pag-rd-s the soft sound appears, the 
weakening of the form is apparently very old. — We must assume the 
fundamental meaning to be that of ‘binding fast,’ from which the 
ideas of ‘ catching’ (cp. réyn), ‘making firm’ (‘ freezing ’) and ‘ joining’ 
are easily derived. Some also derive from this root Skt. pag-u-s= 
Lat. pec-u, Goth. fath-u (‘ possessions’), OHG. fihu, OPr. pek-u and 
wrongly connect them with Gk. wai ‘flock’ Pott W.i. 205, Kuhn 
‘Ztschr.’ ii. 272): but the last word, whose meaning differs, and 
which the Greek laws of sound do not allow us to connect with them, 
cannot be separated from the rt. ro: roi-ynv (No. 372), and has there- 
fore absolutely nothing to do with the present root. pak-u is ‘ that 
which is captured,’ ‘fastened’ (Zimmer ‘ Suff. a’ 294, cp. krij-vos), rad 
‘that which is protected.’ — Cp. d-raé under No. 599. 

344. mai-o strike.— Lat. pav-vo, pavi-mentu-m, de-puv-ere. 

Benf. 11, 77.— Add éu-mao-s ‘striking in,’ mpéds-ma-s ‘ pushing 
against,’ (Aeschyl. Zacher ‘Suff. aos’ 76). The w of depuvere (Paul. 
‘Ep.’ p. 70, 3 from Lucilius pf. depivit) is weakened from a as in con- 
tubern-tu-m. — Whether Skt. pav-i-s ‘tire’ of a wheel, ‘ferrule’ of a 
spear and pav-ira-m ‘a weapon, pdv-tru-s ‘ thunderbolt’ are related, 
the isolation of these words makes it hard to determine. — Further 
combinations with regard to the Latin words in Pott W. i. 1113, 
Corssen 1°, 358. 


344 b. Root mad maédAdAw swing, brandish, quiver, méAy 
swinging, wrestling, zadaie.v to wrestle, raéA-0-5 
lot, wemraddy Oar (I1.) to cast lots, réAcv swinging 
back, zreA-epu-iferv to shake, hurl back, zroA-ep0-s 
war. — Lat. pello, pul-su-s, pul-sa-re.—- OS. filma 
waver, us-filma scared. 

Fick i?. 671, Van. 1183. — A connexion with rt. orap No. 389 is 
uncertain. The intransitive use of mdAXew' 4 Kapdia madXer, whence 
man-p6-s ‘beating of the heart,’ and Lat. pzl-su-s ‘ beating of the pulse,’ 
is significant for the cognate character of the words. 


345. maddpn flat hand. — Lat. palma, palmu-s. — AS. 
bs 


922 BOOK II. 


folma, OHG. volma flat hand. — OIr. lém, Cymr. 
llaw hand. 


Pott i2. 109, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 396, Windisch ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 8. — With 
the meaning ‘span’ which palmus also has, is connected madaorn, 
Att. madaorn (rerrdpoy Saxtidwv pérpov Hesych.). Pauli ‘Korpertheile’ 
p- 21 (cp. Delbriick ‘Ztschr. f. d. Phil.’ i, 145) conjectures that the 
word is connected with Skt. pdni-s (m.) ‘hand,’ where the n points to 
the loss of r, and derives it from rt. par, maa (No. 366): Kiihn 
‘Metathesis’ p. 50 from rt. pal ‘to be flat’ (No. 353).— From the 
meaning ‘ grasp’ come madayd-o-pat, Tadapdor, Nadapndns (Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ 
Wei: 


346. apd, mapal, mdép, ma by the side of, to the side of. 
— Skt. pdrdé away, from, forth, towards, para-m 
beyond, paré thereupon, further, pdéréna further, 
gone by, para-tds further, away, Zd. para before, 
besides. — Lat. per, Osc. perum without. — Goth. 
Jra-, fatr, OHG. far- fer-, NHG. ver-.— Lith. 
par- back, pér through, throughout. 


Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gramm.’ iii. 501, where also an explanation is given 
of the incontestably related forms wepi Skt. pdéri, etc., Grimm. ‘ Gr.’ ii. 
269 724, Pott 1°. 457.—Skt. pdra, like pdréna, bears the plainest 
marks of being an instrumental, which we must also assume to be the 
case with mapa: by the side of this we have the Epic wapai, and mapo- 
in spo-rdpo-dev, which, as being evidently a locative, corresponds to 
the Skt. and Zd. paré. Another case again, the accusative, occurs 
in Skt. param, Osc. perum, where the meaning, ‘ without’ is es- 
tablished in ‘perum dolum mallom’ ‘Tab. Bantina’ ]. 22. The 
shortest form of mapa is wd in inscriptions from Knidos (Wachsmuth 
‘Rh. Mus.’ xviii. 570). From the fundamental meaning ‘by the 
side of, which, if viewed in relation to motion, gives the meanings 
‘towards,’ ‘past,’ the various significations of the particles here brought 
together, may be derived. The Gr. wapd in its temporal use with the 
accusative, e,g. mapa mdvra roy Biov, corresponds completely with the 
Lat. per (cp. also parum-per, paults-per): in the same way mapa rovroy 
yiverat ) oornpia=per hunc servamur, cp. per me licet; perhibere 
answers to mapéxew just as mapadapBavew to percipere, perire and the 
old Lat. perbitere to mapykew, pervertere to mapapeiv, perjurium to mapa- 
vonos. ‘The use in malam partem may, however, be recognized also 
in the Skt. pdard, e.g. in pard-i ‘to go away, ‘depart, pard-da 
‘prodere,’ ‘perdere.’ There is a striking agreement between the Lit. 
per and the Latin, for which ep. Schleicher ‘ Lit. Gr.’ p. 282 ff., ‘ per 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 323 


through, of spaces traversed,’ ‘to denote the means, only with persons :’ 
and yet the same Lith. pér in uses such as per mer ‘beyond measure’ 
may be compared again with the Gr. rapa (mapa pérpov). The group- 
ing above rests on these evident analogies, for which may be compared 
the thorough discussion by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 99 ff. — Fritsch 
too (‘ Vergleichende Bearbeitung der griech. u. lat. Partikeln’ 2 
Theil. Giessen 1858 p. 24) compares Lat. per with rapa. Cp. Nos. 347, 
356, 357, 359. — Rau ‘ de praep. mapa usu Stud.’ iii. 


347. mapos before. — Skt. purds in front, before, Zd. para 
before. — Goth. fatira, OHG. vora before, Goth. 
Saur, OHG. furt for. — Ol. ar, air, Cymr. ar, er, 
yr, by, before, for, on account of. 


Cp. No. 346. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 240.— mdpos looks like a geni- 
tive-form from a stem zap, and corresponds so far to the Skt. pards. 
But this is connected by its meaning with pdrd, while pur-ds (gen). 
puér-a@ (instrum.) mean ‘in front,’ ‘before.’ In Zend para with ace. 
instr. and abl. means ‘ before,’ with dat. ‘ without,’ pard ‘ sooner,’ paré 
‘before.’ Hence purds is probably weakened from paras and radi- 
cally identical with No. 346. — Hiibschmann ‘ Zur Casuslehre’ 321.-— 
OIr. ar, air corresponds to the OGall. are- (for * pare) in Are-morica 
(Armorica Caes.) Z?. 866. This preposition has hardly any con- 
nexion with mepi (Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ i. 311) in its usage : whether we are 
to assume as its primitive form pari, parac or para, cannot be easily 
decided. The cognate intensive er-, e.g. in e7-chosmil (‘ very similar’) 
has its correlative rather in prae-clarus than in per-semilis. 


348. ma-rip (st. marep). — Skt. pi-ta (st. pitar). Zd. pita 
(st. pitar). — Lat. Umbr. pa-ter. — Goth. fa-dar, 
OHG. fatar. — Olt. athir pater, gen. athar. 


Bopp ‘G1. etc. — The root is preserved in the Skt. pd ‘ nourish,’ 
‘protect ;’ the specifically Eastern 2 in pi-tar, recurring in the Lat. 979 
compound Juppiter is a weakening from a. On the doubled p cp. 
Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ 1%, 211, Pauli ‘ Ztschr.’ xvii. 8. —We may notice 
the correspondence of pitr-vja-s, mdtpw-s and patruus ‘father’s 
brother’ to which OHG. fataro ‘uncle,’ AS. fadhu ‘aunt on the 
father’s side’ (Pictet ii, 367) also belong; and of Skt. pitr-ja-s 
‘paternal ’=:drp-wo-s, patr-iu-s. 

349. mdro-s path, step, raré-w step. — Skt. pathd-s way, 
path, st. path, panth, pathi, panthan way, Zd. 
pathan way. — Lat. pon(t)-s, ponti-fex.—ChSl. 
pa-ti way. 

Y 2 


324 BOOK II. 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott ii! 241, Benf. ii. 93. —I stated in ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 34 
my conjecture, that aévro-s also meant properly ‘path’ (like typa 
kédevba, cp. ‘EAAjorovros, e’Eewos m. etc.) and was related to mdros as 
mévbos to rdOos. For the Greeks the sea is the uniting path. Other- 
wise Heinr. Schmidt ‘Synon.’ i. 643. Cp. Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 75, 
Pictet i.115. In the ‘Pet. Dict.’ the meaning ‘ water’ is also given 
for pathas and patha-m, and ‘ sea’ for pathi-s—On the older mean- 
ing of pon-s ‘way’ cp. Cic. ‘ad Att.’ i. 14, 5, Lange ‘Rom. Alterth.’ 
iv, 457. — Fick i°. 135 connects these words with path ‘spread out’ 
(werdvvypt No. 215).—The connexion of the OlIr. dth ‘vadum’ 
(w-stem) with this number (‘ Beitr.’ viii. 2) is doubtful. 


350. mar-éouar (€-1do-ca-To) eat, d-mac-ro-s without 
food. — Zd. path fill up (?). — Goth. fod-jan rpédeu, 
fod-ein-s tpopy. — Chl. pit-a-ti TP pit-omt 
fattened. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ s. v. pa, which root with the meaning ‘ support’ probably 
underlies these words which are extended by ¢, and certainly the Lat. 
pa-sc-o-r (cp. Skt. gd-pa-s ‘cowherd’), pa-bu-lu-m, pas-tor, Pales (cp. 
Preller ‘Rom. Mythol.’ 365) perhaps also Gk. Id», Lat. pa-ni-s 
(Messapian zavés), Lith. pé-na-s ‘fodder,’ pe-n& ‘nourish, pé-tu-s 
(plur.) ‘noon:’ while Gk. md-o-yac ‘acquire,’ é-na-ya belongs to No. 
377. The Lith. words remind us also of the Lat. pe-n-us (‘omne quo 
vescimur’ Cic.), pendtes, penes, pene-tro; the idea ‘stores, ‘ store- 
room,’ furnishes the intermediate step to the latter.— Pott. W. i. 
198 ff., Benf. ii. 72, Schleich. ‘Ksl’ 119. Fick i*%. 135, 655, who 
adds the words quoted by Athenaeus iii. 111¢ from Doric comic 
writers zavia myo porn, Travia mAnopia. — We may notice for the forma- 
tion of the present méocerac’ éoOle. (Hesych.). —The connexion of the 
Olr. tthim ‘edo’ with the ChSl. pitatz assumed in ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 5, is 
disputed by Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 213. 

351. Stem wav mat-w make to cease, mav-o-pwat cease, 
Tav-ha, TavTwAH rest, mat-po-s small. 
Lat. pau-lu-s, pau-cu-s, pau-per. 
Goth. fav-ai (plur.) few, OHG. fohé, AS. fedva, Eng. 
Sew. 

Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 396, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 515. — The second element 
in pau-per must be undoubtedly compared, as Pott ii. 481 saw, with 
opi-paru-s, parére, parare. Op. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 320. But parvus 
presents a difficulty, for it lies very near to Gk. radpos (cp. nervus and 
vedpov), but on the other hand it can hardly be separated from 
paru-m, par-cu-s, par-c-o (Corssen ‘ Beitr” 457).—For paulu-s 


é 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 325 


Corssen ii”, 531. — Fick ii*. 153 refers all the words containing the 
syllable paw to a rt. pu, to which he also traces md-F-ts mais, puer, 271 
putu-s (No. 387) with the notion of ‘smallness. —OlIr. 6a ‘minor’ 
(cp. ‘Beitr.’ viii. 434) seems to occur only in the meaning ‘ minor 
natu, and hence is everywhere the comparative to 6-ac ‘juvenis,’ 
and like this belongs to the Cymr. zewane (compar. zew), Lat. guvenis. 
352. meA-0-s, 7eA-L6-S, TEA-AO-S, mreALOVO-¢ Swarthy, pale, 
ToA-16-¢ gray. — Skt. pal-i-td-s gray. — Lat. 
pall-e-o pall-idu-s, pullu-s. — OHG. falo (fal- 
aw-ér). — ChSl. pla-vi albus, Lith. pdl-va-s 
fallow, yellowish, pil-ka-s ash-gray. 

Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott i’. 120, Benf. ii. 81, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 120. — The 
Lat. pullu-s has the clearest analogy in the Macedon. zédAr-s, 
fem. méAAn, which is explained by refpadns (Sturz ‘de dial. 
Maced.’ p. 45) and from which the name TeéAdy is derived, though 
others, it is true, prefer to connect it with oi méA-a ridou (=fel-s). 
—Corssen ‘Nachtr.’ 232 assumes for l-ve-o, liv-or, liv-idu-s (cp. 
Cymr. liw, OIr. lt ‘color, Z?. 57, 129) an adjective stem pli-vo, 
identical with the ChSl. pla-vz. The common fundamental meaning 
is ‘pale ;’ the loss of the p is as in la-tus (No. 367 b).— Hehn® 300 f. 
connects méAea, meAerds and palumba, which denote the ‘grey dove,’ 
with these words. 

353. méAXa fell, hide, leather, mwéAas hide, épvol-meras 
inflammation of the skin, é7i-mdoo-s caul, ém- 
ToA-7 Surface. 
Lat. pelli-s, pellinu-s. 
Goth. -fill, thruts-fill leprosy, OHG. fél, Goth. jillein-s 
depparives. ; 
Lit. pléné, plevé skin, caul. 

Pott 1°. 264, Benf. ii. 883. —The fundamental meaning of this stem, 
confined, as it seems, to the European languages, must have been that 
of ‘surface.’ Now as this conception is very near that of ‘ plain,’ we 
might compare the Lat. pala-m ‘on the open field’ (cp. Germ. auf 
der Hand) and so far the opposite to arcdnum and secretwm, ChSl. 
polje ‘field’ (Mikl. ‘Lex.’) and also the OHG. feld, though here the 
suffix is different. In pala-m then we should have the same petrified 
case-form, as occurs in cla-m, perpera-m, oli-m, in a locative sense. 
Nos. 102, 367b, 368 are related. 

353 b. wed-i-Kn méALE cup, basin, dim. wedAlyvn, TéAAG 
milk-pail, drinking cup, 7eAAi-s bowl, basin. — 
Skt. pdlavt a kind of vessel. — Lat. pel-vi-s, 
pél-ui-s bowl. 


272 


326 BOOK Il. 


Fick i? 667 — péluz-s, trisyllabic in the comedians Caecilius and 
Laberius (Ribbeck ‘Comici?’ Index), closely resembling the Indian 
word. — Ir. ro (Z?. 411, 864) reminds us of the Lat. pré, but has lost no 
consonant, for it aspirates: re had originally a final nasal (re m-bds ante 
mortem Z?. 641), like co(n), a(n): rem (Z?. 878) reminds us of the Lith. 
prim, and is distinct from riam, which contains a diphthong in the stem- 
syllable. Cp. Beitr. viii. 13. [Moore’s ‘Windisch’ § 251.] 


354, Root mev mév-o-wac work, am in need, zév-n(rT)-s, 
TeVv-l-Xpd-s poor, mev-ia poverty, mevéorar serfs, 
movo-s work, mové-w work, suffer, zov-npo-s 
troublesome, bad.—zretva hunger, 7-7av-ia need (?). 

Lat. pénuria (2). 

OHG. spannan, Goth. OHG. spinnan spin, OHG. 
spanna span. 

ChSl. pin-a (inf. pe-tc) crucify, Bohem. pn-ou-ti, 
strain, ChSl. st-pe-ti compedibus adstringere, — 
pa-to compes, Lit. pin-ti twist, pdn-ti-s cord to 
tie the feet of cattle. 

Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 120, Benf. 360, Fick i°. 830.— We must assume 
a rt. span, preserved in its purest form in omdy-i-s ‘want,’ as in 
OHG. spanan ‘to entice,’ ‘urge on,’ spannan ‘ strain,’ ‘ be strained,’ 
with a loss of the v in omd-o ‘ draw’ (omd-o-pa, ora-c-p6-s) spa-ti-um, 
but with a loss of the initial consonant in the form ev, acquiring 
herewith a less physical signification. From the fuller root-form ema 
the Dor. omd-di0-y = Att. orddiov (Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 109) ‘race-course’ is © 
derived. — In péniiria the é seems to be diphthongal, and the word is 
most closely connected with zeiva (Pott W. 1. 247). — Thus rt. mev 
(for omev): oma=rTev : ta, yev: ya. Add zeé-rov-6-a, ¢-a-6-0-y p. 63, 
words which others (e.g. Fick 1°. 689) separate from this root, and 
refer to the Skt. badh ‘press,’ ‘torture, ChSl. béda ‘need.’ Cp. 
Joh. Schmidt ‘ Vocal.’ i. 93 f. What is said there about the ‘ almost 
contrasted’ meanings of réveoda and macyew is not to the point, as is 
shown by aévys, menxpds. As laborare means both ‘work’ and 
‘suffer,’ so two meanings might well unite in the rts. mev, rad. For the 
loss of an initial s see p. 694. Cp. Pott W.i. 382, Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 
109, 1°. 479, where tnter alia he translates sua spon-t-e ‘from one’s 
own impulse’ [cp. aliena sponte Madvig ‘ Advers. Crit.’ iii.], and com- 
pares the OHG. span-s-t ‘incitement.’ Cp. No. 362. 

355. méos, Too-0n. — Skt. ved. pas pudenda, pds-as mem- 
brum virile. Lat. péni-s. — MHG. visellin penis. 
— Lit. pis-d cunnus, pis-t2 coire cum muliere. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 327 


Pott W. ii. 2, 430, cp. W. i. 203, Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ 1. 288, who 
derives wé-os from meo-os, pé-ni-s from pes-ni-s, and compares also 
OHG. fas-al ‘foetus.’ 

356. mepd-w (mepyow) press through, zrépo-s way, way 
through, zrop-0-6-s ferry, zropev-m convey, pro- 
cure, 7opi¢-m procure, éu-7opo-s passenger, mer- 
chant, zretp-a trial, attempt, ve:pdé- attempt. 

Skt. par (pt-par-mt), carry over, conduct, further, sur- 
pass. Zend par bring over, hu-pere-tu evmropOpos. 

Lat. por-ta, por-tu-s, ex-per-t-o-r, per-t-tu-s, perr- 
culu-m. 

Goth. far-an go, far-j-an convey, OHG. ar-far-u = 
erfahre I experience [originally eundo assequi 
Grimm], ON. jidrdh-r bay. 

OCymr. rit vadum, Gall. Augusto-ritum (Z?. 88), 
Cymr. Rhyd-ychain Ox-ford. 

Grimm ‘Gesch.’ i. 397, Pott W. ii. 1, 395, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 333, 
Rhys ‘ Rey. Celt.’ 11. 326.— Here only the indubitably equivalent 
words are compared. — meipa=mep-ia (Aecol. réppa). The verb meipo 
‘pierce through,’ ‘ bore through’ (me-map-pévo-s) is generally given as 
the stem-verb, because of meipe xéhevdoy (8 434) and similar phrases ; 
but as this word cannot be separated from mepévn ‘spike,’ ‘ pin,’ mépmy 
‘needle, ‘tongue,’ meipd ‘edge,’ mnpd-s ‘mutilated, the meaning is 273 
very remote: I exclude it the more readily from our present group, 
because it recalls the ChSl. por-j¢ (inf. pra-te) oxif, though I do not 
on that account wish to deny the possibility of any relation between 
the roots, for me(po: mépay = ropd-s: trans (No. 238). — On the other 
hand this group is evidently connected with the following. 

357. mépa ultra, wépav trans (comp. mepat-répw ulterius), 
Tmepaiv-w bring to an end, zrepaio-s on the farther 
side, zepd-rn land on the farther side, /Tepatev-s, 
Tépas, Teipap goal, end, a-7re:péo-Lo-s, d-TEpElo-Los 
unlimited, infinite. 

Skt. pdra-s on the farther side, distant, another, 
para-m (ady.) out over, to the farther side, pa- 
ra-md-s the farthest, outermost, pdra-s the farther 
bank, par-d-m goal, end. 

Olr. ire, treiw ulterior. 

Bopp ‘Gl. Pott i. 108, Mikl. ‘Lex.’-—To the adjectival meaning 
of the Skt. pdra-s are akin (besides mép-voe No. 360), Lat. peren-die 


274 


328 BOOK II. 


(cp. Skt. paré-djav-c) ‘on another day,’ per-egre ‘in another land,’ 
per-per-am Gos in a bad sense, while perjuwriu-m has been already 
mentioned under per, mapa (No. 346). Cp. Corssen 1*.776. There is 
evidently a radical connexion with the forms there collected, as with 
No. 356, but in Greek the vowel of the stem-syllable separates mapa 
from mépa, and this is unmistakeably accompanied by a difference of 
meaning. — The OLat. ‘ polteo pro ulteriore’ (Fest. p. 205) reminds 
us of the ChSI. poli ‘ripa ulterior ;’ still I place both here only con- 
jecturally.— In the same way the Osc. pert which is explained by 
‘the other side’ (Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 417, Corssen xiii. 189) may be 
just mentioned. — OHG. fer-no, Goth. fairra ‘far’ is certainly also 
related (cp. No. 360). — OlIr. ire ‘ ulterior’ (Z?. 277) is compared by 
Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 1. 311 with Gk. wepaios: hence the comparative form 
are-iw ‘superior’ (Z?, 275), cp. mepai-repos. 


358. mepd-w (fut. wepd-ow) carry over, sell, wép-vn-t, 
m-mpa-oK-w sell, mpi-a-wat buy, mpa-ct-s' ayopa- 
aia Hesych. — mpa-ria-s' 6 Ta Onpdoia ToeAoY 
Hesych. — aé6p-vn meretrix. 

Skt. par (pri-j-é) d-pr-ta-s busy, pdra-ja-mi (com- 
pounded with vz, @) employ. 

Olr. renitm vendo, as-renim = érnim do, impendo, 
as-ririu impendam. 


Benf. 11. 34, ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 1, where he compares also Skt. pan 
(pan-é) ‘exchange,’ ‘purchase,’ ‘wager, pan-a-s ‘wager,’ ‘ bargain,’ 
‘pay,’ pdn-ja-s ‘purchasable,’ etc. The lingual points to the loss 
of r, so that pana-té and mépva-ra correspond. Cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 
414f. where I have compared also the Lit. per-k-w ‘buy’ as a form 
expanded by the addition of a &; the word prék-i-s ‘ price,’ which is 
certainly related, approaches closely to the Lat. pre-tiu-m, but as 
here the form iné seems to be the only legitimate one, the resemblance 
does not extend beyond a community of root. — mepdo in its relations 
to m-mpd-oxw, etc. is discussed by Lobeck ‘ Paralipp.’ 401. The form 
€-mpa-cev" empaypatevoaro (Hesych.) attaches itself to the meaning of 
Skt. w-d-pdra-s ‘ business :’ I regard as an expansion of this wpa the 
stem of mpdooe (lon. rpnooa, mpnéis) whose meaning in Homer is much 
more material than is the case in later usage. Cp. No. 273 and 
I. Bekker’s fine discussion in ‘ Homer. Blatter’ ii, 50 ff. The older 
form of the stem was zpak, preserved in mpaxd-s C. J. No. 1702 1. 4, 
from which spay arose by softening (cp. p. 674). — With No. 356 
(cp. 357) mepdw was originally identical; mpiacba (cp. ‘Greek Verb’ 
p. 120) Pott W. i. 251 well translates ‘I bring to myself :’ it was 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 329 


only by degrees that ‘transfer’ and ‘traffic’ (Wandel and Handel) 
parted off into distinct forms of similar origin. On the Irish words cp. 
Windisch ‘Beitr.’ viii. 11: renim is to wépynu, as Lat. sisto is to 
tornpe; the reduplicated future rt-riu, like mpiac@a, goes back to a 
root-form mp. The Lith. pélna-s ‘service, ‘reward,’ is identical 
with Skt. pana-s; with the Lith. verb pelnad, inf. pelnyti ‘ deserve’ 
is connected the Ol. ar-illiud ‘meritum,’ att-roi-lli ‘meruit’ (Z’. 
869), pres. stem palnia, ep. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 5. 

359. zepi about, over, very, 7épr-€ round about, 7repi-cod-s 
excessive, -7rep however much. — Skt. pdri as adv. 
round about, as prep. with acc. about, against, 
with abl. from, compounded with adjectives, very. 
— Zend pairi as adv. round, as prep. with ace. 
about, with instrum. and abl. before, over, in 
comp. very. — Lat. per- before adjectives. 

Bopp ‘Gl., Pott i*. 108, 17. 483.— As wept mavroy eupevar dddov in 
Homer, so Skt. pari-laghu-s ‘very light,’ Lat. per-mag-nu-s (cp. mepi- 
pyx-ns). Pott also adds Metpi-Ooos, the « of which he holds to have 
been produced as in eivi and the ai in Zend, by anticipation (Vork- 
lingen) of the 2 (Umlaut). An unusually careful discussion of the 
whole of the material here coming under consideration is given by 
Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xiv. 1 ff. The most remarkable coincidences between 
the Vedic and Homeric language result from this: e.g. mepi- 
owe = part-veda, mepi-eott= parj-astt. Cp. Hiibschmann ‘Zur Casus- 
lehre’ 319. — The particle wep, in form equivalent to the apocopated 
Aeol. mep=repi, Hartung ‘ Partikeln’ i. 327 ff. recognizes in its con- 
nexion with mepi.—Cp. mapa (No. 346) and mapos (No. 347). In 
Skt. the use of pari is less sharply distinguished from that of the 
forms quoted under mwapa.—In C. I. No. 11 we find map rodeo in the 
sense of wept modeyov, with the original a preserved, as in Fdpyov, and 
the augm. a (Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 226).— The Celtic intensive particle, 
Ir. er- (er-chosmil ‘persimilis’ Z?. 864). Cymr. er- (er-drym ‘valde 
compacta,’ Z?. 895) cannot be with certainty traced back to parz, but 
it certainly belongs to the particles originally beginning with par. 
The length of the vowel, e.g. in Ir, er-mall ‘admodum lentus,’ is 
doubtless only secondary. 


359 b. mepx-vo-s (also wépko-s) spotted, blackish. — Skt. 
pr¢-ni-s spotted, pied (especially of cows). 
Fick 1°. 669, Pott W. u. 2, 441.—The Greek word has the es- 


pecial meaning ‘sprinkled with dark spots,’ and hence is often used 
especially of fruit which is getting dark and ripe, but no one who 


a | 


830 BOOK TI. 


examines the glosses of Hesychius, mepxa(eu' pedavifer movxiAdet, if) me- 
maiverat, mepkaiverv’ Svamrouxiddeo Oar, mepkvdv' pehavdy srouKidov, mrepkvds* 
yhaveds pédas kal Ta Spota, mepkopara’ Ta ext Tod mpoodmov srovKiApara, 
mpaxvov’ péava, tmpexvdv' motkddxpoov edador, will doubt the funda- 
mental meaning here stated, nor that aépk-as' éddqous, mpd& (st. 
mpox) and mpokd-s ‘hind’ or ‘fawn’ or ‘roe,’ for the meaning of 
the word is disputed, belong here.— By the side of the words 
with ¢ we find in Sanskrit others equivalent in meaning, but pre- 
senting sh in the place of ¢, and regarded as related, prsh-atd-s 
‘spotted gazelle,’ prshant ‘dappled,’ prshati ‘dappled cow.’ In the 
case of several of these words we have the by-meanings ‘spot,’ ‘ fleck,’ 
‘drop of water’ (as with prshatd-s): hence it seems probable that 
‘sprinkle’ is the fundamental meaning of the root, and that mp, 
‘drop of water’ (Hesych. mpdéé) has also the same origin. Finally, 
Hpéxvm is probably the ‘pied swallow.’—With zepk-vd-s Benf. 11. 82 
connects the Lat. spwre-u-s, the meaning of which is related to that 
of the Greek word as the MHG. smuz to smitzen ‘to throw upon. 
Cp. above p. 114. We should thus be brought back to a rt. spark, 
which Fick identifies with the Skt. spare ‘ tangere,’ ‘ conspergere,’ 
the meaning ‘to bespot’ linking the two. As to meaning the Lat. 
sparg-o (whose g might be softened from c), MHG. sprengen ‘ spar- 
gere, sprengel ‘tuft for sprinkling with,’ and Skt. parsh (for park- 
sh ?), Zend paresh ‘besprinkle,’ come nearer: to these we may add 
Bohem. pré-e-ti ‘drizzle, ‘rain’ (Miklosich ‘Lex.’ s. v. prich- p. 716). 
— On the connexion with rt. spar and on by-forms with A cep. 
No. 389. 


360. mépvat (Dor. wépuTi, méputis) last year, repuct-vd-s 
of last year.— Skt. parut mépvoi, parut-tnd-s 
mepuvaivos. — MHG. vért, vérnent, vérn anno supe- 
riore. — Olr. inn uraid last year. 

Pott i. 108, ii'. 266, 587, Benf. i. 312, Stokes ‘ Corm. Gl. Transl.’ 
p- 97.— The Skt. word is clearly a compound of para ‘alius’ (No. 
357) and vat = Feros (No. 210). Hence we have here one of the few 
certain cases in which compounds date from a time earlier than the 
separation of the languages. — With the MHG. vért, however, we 
must also compare the Goth. fairn-s ‘old,’ fairnjo jér ‘the old year’ 
(Diefenbach ‘Goth. Wtb.’ i. 353).—OlIr. wraid (onn wrid ‘ab anno 
priore, Z°. 611) stands for *paruti. 


361. wydo-s mud, mA-wo-s of mud, mpo-mndak-f¢-o 
defile, insult. — Lat. pal-w(d)-s, palus-tri-s (?). 
Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott it, 242, ii4, 493, 580, ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 179. — Benf. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. $31 


ii. 81 connects these words with those discussed under No. 352. 
Perhaps he is right in explaining the length of the first syllable from 
a form madfo-s (cp. yoova = yovFa) to which the Skt. palva-ld-s ‘ pool,’ 
‘pond, points. — mndak-if¢-® presumes a noun formed like Bada€, 
though its actual occurrence cannot be proved. However Hesych. 
has ma\-ko-s* mndo-s. — Is pal-a(d)-s compounded with the st. ud 
= 06 (No. 300), meaning thus ‘muddy water 


362. mivo-s, whvn, wynv-to-v (Dor. ravio-v) weft, woof, mnv- 
i¢-owar reel, weave, wnvi-Ti-s Weaving woman. 
Lat. pannu-s, pannu-velliu-m, panu-s weft. 
Goth. fana pdéxos, OHG. fano linteum, vexillum. 
ChSl. pon-java linteum, o-pona aulaeum, velum. 276 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 396.— These words are probably connected with 
No. 354.+— Miklosich ‘ Lex.’ 624.— pannuvelliwm Varro ‘ Ling. Lat.’ 
v.§ 114 with the commentators. In the case of panu-s, which also 
means ‘swelling, it may be doubted whether it is not a Doric word 
borrowed. No importance is to be attached to the doubled m in 
pannus (cp. qguattuor), and we need not on that account assume a 
formation originally distinct from mvo-s.—Of Greek words the 
river-name [Inv-e-s (cp. dpv-ed-s) ‘thread’ (?) and Tnvedorea 
probably belong here: the latter Pott has already (ii. 261) con- 
nected with mn, and Welcker also (‘Ep. Cyclus’ ii. 15, ‘ Gotter- 
lehre’ i. 659) explains it ‘ weaving-woman. I divide it Unveh-oz-eva 
and regard the first part as an offshoot from mivo-s, like m-edn, kvp- 
é€dn, Oup-edn, vep-eAn (by the side of végos), the second as a feminine 
nomen agentis, formed, like dus-apioro-réxera, from the rt. dr, pre- 
served in Lat. op-us = Skt. dp-as, and perhaps in PvA-on-i-s ( race- 
work 2’), Apt-o and in Iav-or-evs father of Eres. Other traces of 
the rt. 6m are discussed in ‘Studien’ i. 1, 261. The word would thus 
mean ‘ worker in weaving,’ ‘ clothes-worker’ (cp. r 142). 


363. Root mt mi-wy (st. mov), miapo-s, mlepo-s, mLaréo-s 
fat, Miepia, miap, 716-Tn(7)-s, mip-eAH fat, miaiv-w 
fatten. 

Skt. rt. pt (pdj-é) swell, be swollen, make to swell, 
pi-na-s, pi-van, prvard-s fat (adj.), pivas fat (subst.), 
piny ( ptnv-d-mi) swell.—Zd. pivaih (n.) fat. 

Bopp ‘GL, Pott W. i. 578, Benf. ii. 76, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 375, with 
whom I cannot agree in the identification of the suffixes. — Clearly the 
‘unmarried’ feminine zéepa, as Déderlein calls it (‘ Gloss.’ 2250) corre- 
sponds to the Skt. pivar?. — Iepia Fick 1’. 674. — pingur-s I regard as 


Doe BOOK IT. 


a nasalized form which has arisen out of pengu-i-s=mayv-s. Cp. p. 521, 
Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 88. 

364. zrido-s felt, felt hat.— Lat. pilleu-s ( pileu-s).— OHG. 
jil-z. — ChSl. plist coactile. 

Pott i. 109, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 398, Mikl. ‘ Lex.’ — According to 
Fleckeisen ‘ Fifty Articles’ p. 35, we must write pillews with Ul, but 
this can hardly have any etymological significance. How it is related 
to the Lat. pilu-s‘ hair’ is not quite clear. Corssen 1”. 525 proposes 
an extensive combination, which is however too hair-splitting for me. 
Fick i1°. 151 connects midos with rt. pis ‘pound’ (nricce). 

365. zivo-s dirt, mivapo-s dirty, o7i-Ao-s spot, &-o7l-A0-¢ 
spotless. — Old Bohem. spi-na, New Boh. spina 
smut. 

Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 120. — Other combinations in Benf. ii. 77, rejected 
in ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 416 in favour of that here given. The Slavonic form 
points to a rt. om, from which zi-vo-s as well as omi-Ao-s have been de- 
rived. Cp. also mivaxos* xovpd, Ta Tyynpata kal dmoxabdppara tov Evrwr, 
omtdos* KnXis (Hesych.). 

365 b. sic-o-s pea, mic-.vo-s of pease.— Lat. pis-u-m, 

Piso. 

Pictet 11. 288, Pott W. ii. 2, 431.— Both derive the word from rt. 

pts, whence the Skt. pish ‘grind,’ ‘pound;’ from this come pish-tika 

277 ‘a kind of groats,’ Lat. pins-o pis-o ‘ pound,’ pis-tor pi-lu-m (cp. p. 193 
above), pilumnu-s (‘Symbola Phil. Bonn.’ i. 277) ChSl. p%s-eno addurov, 
pis-enica ‘ triticum’ (Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 760). Hehn* 191 is probably right 
in adding the ChSl. pés-diki ‘sabulum,’ ‘ calculus,’ and in conjecturing 
‘ globule,’ ‘ grain-fruit, to be the primary meaning, one which is easily 
derived from the rt. pis. For mricow and its relation to pinso cp. 
p. 498. — Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 21, Delbriick ‘ Ztschr. f. d. Phil.’ i. 144 
add to this group also OHG. fesa ‘ chaff.’ 

366. Root mAa mi-p-mAn-pe (inf. mip-7Ad-var) Homer, rip- 
mAa-ve-rat fill, 7Aj-0-w am full, 7A€é-w-s, TAH-p-ns 
full, wAn-0-d-s, 7wANO-os crowd. — 7mAod-7T0-s5 ful- 
ness, riches. 

Skt. rt. par (pi-par-mi, pr-na-mi) fill, pra-na-s, pur- 
nd-s plenus. — Zd. par fill up, perena full. 
Lat. im-ple-o, OLat. ex-plé-nunt, plé-nu-s, plé-be-s, 
po-pulu-s. 
Goth. full-s mAnpns, fulld mARpopya, OHG. fol full, 
fole folk. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 333 


ChSl. plit-n& plenus, pli-k&% turba, populus, ple-me 
tribus, Lith. pil-t fill, pil-na-s full. 

Olr. lan, OCymr. laun plenus, Olr. com-all praeg- 
nans, com-alnaim impleo;. for-dil abundantia, 
der-dil penuria, /én numerus, pars, /énaim I fill, 
linmaire plenitudo. 


_ Bopp ‘ GI.,’ Pott W. i. 249, ii. 1, 358, who also compares amplu-s, 
Benf. ii, 85, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 162. — For the formation of the present 
ep. ‘Gk. Verb’ p. 170.— Lottner ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 19 calls attention to the 
2 common to all the European languages ; the first inclination to which, 
however, is found in the Vedic pulu-s=purti-s ‘many,’ with the 
unauthenticated rts. pul ‘magnum esse,’ pil ‘ colligere’ (cp. No. 375). 
These words with their ramifications are certainly related, and eluci- 
date the meaning of populus, fole. Cp. No. 247.— The root-form mAa 
here assumed has at its side a metathesized med, like yev by the side of 
yua, ten by thn, pev by pva. Pictet it. 111 adds mAy-pyy ‘nave’ ‘le plein 
de la roue.’ For the secondary @ in rAn-6-o, etc. cp. p. 63: the suffix 
of ple-bé-s belongs to the series of formations with b (her-ba, mor-bu-s). 
— Lobeck ‘ El.’ 1. 245 explains hé-6po-v as ‘spatium expletum, di- 
mensum atque descriptum,’ connecting with it d-méd-e-Opo-y (6 od« gore 
petpnoat), wAj-Opo-v (eidos werpov Hesych.) and d-mhe-ro-v ‘ quod men- 
suram excedit. Otherwise Hultsch ‘Metrologie’ 31, who resorts 
to the rt. weA ‘turn, in the sense of the Lat. vorsu-s. But dmédeOpos 
at any rate cannot be arrived at thus. — On the rts. mda and mpa cp. 
‘Stud.’ iv. 228.— Fick i°. 665, 668 derives Oly. lén (= -all in com-all) 
from rt. pal, like Goth. fudls: but din from rt. pla, like Lat. plénus ; cp. 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 8. 
367. Root mAar (for TAak) wAjoo-w (€-7Any-n-v, é€-e- 
mwAdy-n-v) strike, mAny-7 blow, wAdé¢-@ strike, 
drive off (€mAdy x Onv, tAayKTOs), bo-mAné (p. 228). 
Lat. plang-o, plang-or, planc-tu-s, plag-a.— plec-t-ere 
punish (2). 
Goth. flék-an kémrreoOat, lament [Scot. fleech]. 
Lit. plak-& strike, plék-ti flog. 


Pott W. ili. 188, Benf. ii. 98. — In the ‘ Ind. lect. aest. Kil.’ 1857 
p. vi. I have shown that plak is the root-form, from which mwAay arose 278 
by weakening. For the connexion of mAnoow with éemddyxOny, wadm- 
nrayxGeis and mAdge (® 269) cp. ‘ Philologus’ iii. p. 2 ff Cp. Lobeck 
‘Elem, i. 237. Fick i%. 681.— Lobeck (as also Ahrens ‘ Formenl.’ 
p- 117) justly assumes a rt. wed, from which come also mdnoio-v and 
méd-as, TeLxeot-mAj-T)-s, d-wha-ro-s With the fundamental meaning of 


334 BOOK II. 


‘striking’ or ‘hitting against something.’ This more physical meaning 
still occurs plainly in dac-mdj-T1-s, which Welcker ‘ Gotterl.’ i. 699 
translates by ‘hard-hitting’ as an epithet of the Epwis. The shortest. 
form of the root, originally par, occurs in Zend, where it means ‘to 
fight, and in Church-Slavonic and Lithuanian, with the meaning of 
‘to strike’ in pra-ti, Lith. pér-tt. To this belongs the proper name 
Idpi-s, translated ’ANéEavdpos ‘champion,’ and the Vedic pari-par-in 
‘opponent’ (‘ Ztschr.’ i, 35, v. 394). From aed we also arrive at réA- 
e-xus, No. 98. On the vowels which appear here as in méAas, meAdlo, 
see p. 727. — From this wed, tha we get plak by means of an accessory 
k, and thence mAay, as from mpa mpay (No. 358). I conjectured some 
time ago that méAay-os was of the same origin and meant ‘beating, 
‘tossing,’ and to this [ hold even after the discussion of Heinr. Schmidt 
‘Synon.’ i. 644 f. The explanation suggested by Lobeck ‘ Proleg.’ 
305, Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 420, and Heinr. Schmidt from mddé ‘ board,’ 
in the sense of aeguor, I cannot reconcile with the Homeric ddés 
év meddyeoot € 335. The stem maak (No, 102) is thus a form which was 
retained for certain meanings, by the side of which the later forms 
here discussed, having separated from the others only on Greek soil, 
went their own distinct way.— OHG. fleg-il [cp. Eng. flail from OIr. 
jlael| is probably regarded with justice as borrowed from flagellum, but 
the Goth. flék-an |Scotch fleech| points to an ante-Teutonic plag, so 
that this weaker form by the side of the stronger is shown to be very 
ancient. Cp. J. Grimm ‘ Worterb.’ under fluchen, Delbriick ‘Ztschr, 
f, d. Philol.’ i. 145, Corssen i%. 395. 


367 b. mAarv-s flat, broad, wAdr-os breadth, rAdr-7 blade 
of the oar, plate, wAd7-avo-s plane. — 7A46-avo-r, 
7Aa0-dvyn pastry board. 

Skt. rt. prath (prathé) spread out, prthvi-s (compar. 
prath-ya-s) broad, wide, prdth-as breadth, — Zd. 
Ffrath-anh breadth. 

Lith. platw-s broad. 

Olr. lethan, OCymr. litan broad. 


Pott i. 93, Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Benf. ii. 98, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 40, Ebel 
‘Beitr. i. 310, Windisch ibid. viii. 14.— The verb wAdoow with a 
dental stem (zAdo-pa, rhac-16-s) probably belongs here, so that the funda- 
mental meaning is extendere, expandere, a meaning well adapted to de- 
note working in soft masses ; hence also &u-mdac-rpo-y ‘ plaster.’— From 
Latin we may compare /dt-us with a lost p (cp. lanw under No. 102), 
and lat-er ‘ brick,’ properly ‘ plate,’ but certainly not latus , for which, 
from ‘ Fest.’ p. 313 ‘stlata genus nayigii latum magis quam altum,’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 335 


we must assume an initial sé] (cp. under No. 227): though perhaps we 
may add planta ‘sole of the foot,’ the meaning approaching that of 
mary: Corssen, however, i’. 637 explains it from pldnc-ta. pla-nu-s 
so far asform goes might belong here as wellas to No. 102.— Latium 
which I formerly placed here must be kept apart on account of the 279 
Umbrian form Zlatie, discovered by Biicheler (Fleckeisen’s ‘ Jahrb.’ 
1875 p. 133).—Cp. also Nos. 215, 353. 
368. mAivOo-s brick. — OHG. flins stone, [AS. flint. | 

Pott ii’. 444, Benf. 1. 99, Fick 1°. 682.— Does mdrivOos belong to 
the series of forms in v6 (takivOos, etc.) discussed by Pott ‘ Personen- 
namen’ p. 451? It might easily be derived from the méA-a ‘ rocks ’ 
mentioned under No. 352, with the syncope of the e (cp. ém\ero).— The 
relation to the German word is not properly cleared up, and other 
comparisons are extremely doubtful (cp. p. 523). 


369. Root mAv mAé-@ (mAev-copat) sail, float (by-form 
TAB-. ), TAO-0-§ Voyage, 7Aw-Tés fit for a voyage, 
seaworthy, rAé-77-s floater, sailor. —aAvv-o wash, 
mAd-ua dish-water [7Av-ua Bekker in Arist. H. A. 
iv. 8, p. 534, 1. 27: ep. Lidd. and Scott s.v.]@Av-74-s 
washed, zAvy-r7p washer. 

Skt. rt. plu (pldv-é) float, sail, hover, spring, d-plu 
bathe oneself, wash, plava-ja-mi cause to float, 
bathe, wash, plav-d-s boat, floating, flood. 

Lat. plu plu-t-t, pluv-ia, OLat. per-plov-ere cause to 
flow through, be leaky. 

Goth. fié-du-s mrotapos, OHG. flew-iu fluito, lavo, 
Jliu-z-u fluo. 

Chl. plov-a, plu-jq (inf. plu-tt) mAé-@, plav-t (fem.) 
navis, Lith. pléu-j-u (inf. pldu-ti) wash, plat-ti-s 
catarrh, plu-s-tt to begin to float, overflow. 

Olr. luam celox, luath velox, im-luad agitatio, m- 
luadad saltabat, liud velocitas. 

Bopp ‘G1. Pott W. i. 1128, Benf. 11. 96, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 397. — 
The root denotes movement in water and of water under four main 
heads: (1) float (flood, wash); (2) sail; (3) flow ; and (4) rain; and 
only in Skt. and Old Irish motion generally. For ‘spring’ we have 
the older Vedic form pru. With the meaning ‘fluctuare’ may be con- 
nected plima, becoming in German Flawm.— For mhiv-o=mdv-v1-@ 
ep. ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 89. To the stem Avy belongs also mAvy-rnp (ms. mv- 
mip, but cp. mdvyrpia) which Hesych. considers equivalent to mAvopés 


336 BOOK IT. 


[or rather mAvvds L. and §.]. It seems therefore to have meant 
‘wash-trough, =Lat. linter (‘ trough,’ ‘ boat,’ ‘washing-boat’), Old 
Lat. Junter (Biicheler ‘Rh. Mus.’ xi. 298). [This comparison is rejected 
by Nettleship, ‘Essays’ p. 29.] In Prise. v. p. 151 Hertz mduvrnp or 
mdvvrnp (Aeol.) is to be read. —‘pateram perplovere, pertusam esse’ 
Fest. p. 250; Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ ii’. 20, where plora-re (which reminds 
of the Homeric dakpumAwev) is also discussed, and explained as a de- 
nominative from a lost adj. ploru-s from ploveru-s. (Otherwise 1’. 361.) 
— mvedo-s is put for mAvedo-s to avoid labdacism. — The Lith. plad-k-tz 
‘swim’ is expanded by the addition of a 4.—For the Celtic words 
(Z?, 22, 25, 224, 876) cp. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 9, 475. 

370. Root mvu mvé-@ (rved-cw) blow, breathe, wved-pa, 
mvo-y breath, mvev-pov (st. mvevpov) mAetpov 
lungs, 7re-mrvv-pévo-s, mivu-ro-s intelligent, mivut fh 
understanding, zroi-7vv-@ puff. 

280 Lat. pul-mo (st. pulmon). 
ChSl. plusta (neut. plur.), Lith. plaviczei (pl.) lungs. 


Pott W. i. 1124, Benf. 1.605, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 398, Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xii. 402 with my reply xii. 396.— The Slavo-Lith. words point to a 
stem-form expanded by a #, which is possibly more closely connected 
with rviy-@ (for mvu-x-@?). For it is not improbable that mviyo starts from 
the fundamental idea ‘ I make to breathe hard’ (Benf.). Cp. Goth. hvap- 
ja (No. 36). Otherwise Corssen ‘Nachtr.’ 117, Fick 1°. 251. — muv-ré-¢ 
(avurds Euppov, vito’ ervevoev, évdnoev Hesych.) with an anaptyctic «, 
like the Lat. p-i-tu-ita compared with mri- (No. 382). Cp. p. 730. 
The breath is here, as in the Lat. animus, a symbol of the life of the 
soul.— In the case of pulmo it may be supposed that there has ~ 
been borrowing, still we should rather in that case expect plumo 
and instead of the long vowel a short vowel in the suffix (pul-min- 
is). — The replacement of n by /, which shows itself in a remarkable 
manner in three families of speech, is explained by the rarity of the 
sound-group pn and the frequency of pl. — Pauli ‘ Korpertheile’ 15 
adopts an entirely different explanation, identifying mhev-yov and pul- 
mo with the OHG. flow-m ‘fat of the intestines’ (and also ‘dirt’), and 
thinks that the lungs are called so from their floating on the surface 
(No. 369) and that wvevpov is a later form, arising in an endeavour 
to secure resemblance to mvéo. Cp. p. 450. 


371. Root mo, m Aecol. 7é-v-o, mi-v-w (fut. mi-opat, aor. 
€-mi-o-v, mi-O61, perf. wé-ma-xa) drink, 76-7o-s, 
WO-"a, 7O-"a, mo-ol-s drink, 76-rn-s drinker, 
T0-THp-.o-y cup, mi-vo-v barley-drink, beer. — 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 337 


ml-mi-cK-o give to drink, mi-c-os meadow, /lica 
mi-o-rpa watering place [also, drink]. 

Skt. rb. pa- ( pa-mit, pt-ba-mi, later pi-vd-mt) drink, 
paya-ja-mi give to drink, pa-tra-m drinking vessel, 
pa-na-m drink, draught, pi-ta-s drunken, having 
drunk. 

Lat. pd-tu-s, pd-ti-o(n), pd-tor, po-c-ulu-m, potare. — 
bi-b-o. 

ChSI. pi-tz bibere, pi-vo (st. pives) Toa, Na-por-te 
morte, Lith. po-td tippling, pé-na-s milk. 

Olr. ibim bibo. 


Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 188, Benf. ii. 74, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 119, Stokes 
‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ p. 93. — We must assume pa as the original root, 
but by the side of it in all families of language the weaker form pz 
also presents itself. Cp. No. 475. — Lat. bi-b-o perhaps by a weaken- 
ing which, just as in Boblicola (Corssen ‘ Ausspr.’ i’. 129) proceeding 
from a letter in the middle of the word attacked the initial consonant 
by assimilation (cp. Skt. pi-ba-mz). We have further vini-bu-a 
(Non. p.//1), ex-bu-res (quasi epotae Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 79), where bw ap- 
pears to have arisen from po (Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 176). Jm-bu-o 
according to Fick 1°. 654 for zm-bu-jo, is a sort of causative to 7m-bibo : 
cp. ChSl. po-ja (inf. por-ti) ‘give to drink. A similar weakening in 
Bica, the later form for the fountain Mica (Lob. ‘ Proleg.’ 419) men- 
tioned by Strabo viii. p. 356 : for ica see also Aug. Mommsen ‘ Philol.’ 
viii. 724. The etymology is as early as Strabo.— For the Aeolic forms 
mo-v-w, etc. see Ahr. ‘ Aeol.’ 131.—OlIr. 6l potus (Stokes ‘ Beitr,’ 
vili. 371) must belong to No. 366: cp. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 8. 


372. moi-puyy (St. mopev) Shepherd.— Skt. pa-jzi-s guardian, 
Zd. pd-yu protector, paya pasture. — Lith. pé-mit% 
(st. pé-men) shepherd. 


Pott W.i. 245, Benf. ii. 73, Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 278. — By the dis- 
covery of the Vedic pd-jzi-s light is thrown upon the origin of the 
words. pd-ju-s is derived from the rt. pa ‘ protect,’ and hence means 
‘shepherd :’ to this belongs 7é-v for 7@-ju ‘herd,’ to which, as being a 
neuter, the passive meaning was attached. From mé-juv came soi-pny 
as Sarv-yov from darv. The Lith. pé-mi also points by its é to an z 
once present in the stem-syllable. 

373. mown ‘penalty,’ d-mowa ‘ransom,’ which, along with Lat. poena, 
punio, paenitet, I previously placed here, belong to the cases of labial- 
ism: p. 472. 

Z 


338 BOOK II. 


374. méXu-s town, dim. 7roAi-x-vn, ToAL-X-VL0-V, TOAL-TN-S. 
— Skt. pur, purt-s, purt, pura-m town, citadel. 


Bopp ‘GI. etc. —The derivation from the rt. me (No. 366) con- 
jectured also by Pott ii’. 118, Benf. ii. 86 has been discussed above, 
p- 79. It is noteworthy that in Sanskrit as in Greek the notion of 
stronghold comes into prominence, and on account of this Pictet ii. 
290 perhaps rightly compares the Lith. pl-?-s ‘castle.’ —-ondcq-ry-s Dor. 
moXud-ra-s, presumes a stem modia. The stem moducoa in modtooodxos 
must be traced back to modu-x-ca with a double hypocoristic suffix, and 
the same /, aspirated by the influence of » (cp. Avx-vo-s), occurs also in 
mont-x-m (cp. KvduE Kvdi-x-vy). — mToXi-e-Opo-v (cp. Oup-e-rpo-v) seems to 
go back to a verbal stem (cp. Hom. modi-¢-@ ‘ build’). — For the r of 
the Homeric and Cyprian mrdds see p. 498. 


375. troAv-s (by-stem 7roAAo) much (comp. mAe«-f-v, sup. 

TAEL-OTO-S). 

Skt. purw-s much (Ved. pulu-s), pul-a-s wide. OPers. 
paru-s much. 

Lat. plas, plir-imu-s, pléri-que. 

Goth. jilu medvs, filu-sna 7An80s, ON. comp. flei-ri, 
sup. flest-r. 

Olr. il multus, lar multitudo, lia plus, plures. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 361, Benf. 11. 85, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ i. 310. — 
For the Vedic form pulu-s cp. Max Miiller ‘ Ztschr.’ vy. 141. The un- 
mistakeable connexion with rt. mre (No. 366) shows itself with 
especial clearness in the comparative forms developed from the 
shorter stem mde: mhe-cov = Lat. ple-(z)os (pleores = pliires Carm. 
Arv.) whence also plérique, while the old Latin forms plous, plousima, 
ploirume, plisima presuppose the form plo-(t)os (Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 
283, Leo Meyer ‘Gott. Anz.’ 1861, p, 967).— The uw of the stem- 
syllable is a specifically Indic weakening from a, and parw the original 
form, tokAo = mod Fo goes back to par-va.— For Olr. il, lia cp. ‘ Beitr.’ 
viii. 4 (corrected ibid. 475).— Any (Dor. mda) ‘ except’ is, according 
to Pott W. i. 1, 365, identical with wAéov: it may be explained from 
a primitive form *prd-jans, while mdéoy goes back to *pra-jans. Still 
there are difficulties remaining. 


376. Root mop é-7op-o-v gave, brought, wé-mpw-rat is 
given, determined, vropovv-w afford, prepare. 
Lat. par-(t)-s, por-tt-o-(n), par-a-re (2), por-ta-re. 
Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ v. 417.— The developement of the meaning of 
989, wepos (No. 467) shows that the fundamental idea of pars is ‘ share,’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 339 


‘ portion.’ — I conjecture that the root appears also in the Lat. par- 
a-0, pe-per-t, which has its nearest analogue in the Lith. per-aa ‘I 
brood,’ ‘hatch. We have a similar transition of meaning in the 
OHG. bir-u ‘pario’=Gk. dépw (No. 411) and in the German word 
trdchtig (‘ bearing,’ ‘ pregnant’) and there is a like relation between to 
‘bring’ and to ‘ bring forth.’ Hence parentes (on the aorist form of 
which see ‘Studien’ v. 440) are of ropdvres,. Thus we may without any 
violence place in this group also the poetic mép-i-s ‘juvenca’ (« 410). 
But mép-ti-s, mép-ra-E have the same meaning, words which Benf. 1. 
583 compares with the Skt. prthu-ka-s, prathu-ka-s ‘young. We 
may therefore assume derivation from the same root, by the aid of a 
dental consonant, and connect them with mapOévo-s ‘maiden,’ and 
somewhat more distantly with OHG. far ‘taurus, which Grimm 
‘Gesch.’ 32 derives from fars, whence fersa ‘cow.’— Por-td-re is the 
frequentative to mopeiv. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 78 connects with portio, 
o-porte-t for ob-porte-t, ‘it falls to me as my share.— A connexion 
with No. 356 is probable. — Fick indeed (i*°. 664) connects this 
group with the Skt. pi-par-mi (No. 366) which besides meaning 
‘fill’ also means ‘deal out lavishly,’ ‘bestow.’ But the notion of 
lavishness is wholly wanting to the Graeco-Latin words. 


377. méot-s (for méri-s) husband, wé7-via the holy, dec- 
motn-s master, déc-wolva mistress, decmdauvo-s 
lordly, dec7r6¢-m am lord. 

Skt. pa-ti-s lord, husband, pd-t-ni lady, wife, pat-j-é © 
am lord, share. 

Lat. com-po(t)-s, tm-po(t)-s, pot-is (potis-sum, pos- 
sum), pot-ior, pot-ens, pot-es-ta(t)-s, pot-i-r7. — Ose. 
putiad possit. 

Goth. -fath-s lord, briith-fath-s bridegroom. 

Lith. pa-t-s husband, male, self, pa-ti wife, pdt pre- 
cisely, very, vész-pat-s lord, ruler. 


Bopp ‘GIl.,’ Pott W. i. 238, Benf. ii. 75.—The root is pa (Skt. 
pd, pami) ‘guard,’ ‘protect,’ from which come also pd-ld-s ‘ ruler, 
‘prince, Bohem. pd-n ‘lord ;’ and also Gk. md-o-pa: ‘ acquire,’ mé-ma- 
pac ‘possess. The close connexion of the notions ‘to be master’ and 
‘to possess,’ which recur in all words of this root, is shown by the 
proverbial use in Theocritus xv. 90 macdpevos émiracce. A noun 
pa-ti-s formed from this root is preserved in four families of speech. 
The Lat. potis, identical even in the o-sound, Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 
279 regards as a comparative like magis, satzs, because of potis-sent 
and similar forms; still in these forms potis might also be explained 

Z 2 


283 


340 BOOK II. 


as a plural (=poteis, cp. ‘divi qui potes’ Varro ‘ Ling. Lat.’ v. § 58, 
Kviéala ‘Ber. d. Wiener Acad.’ 1870 p. 141 ff.). Another form 
direct from the root is Po-ta Vica. Pota was the old name of Victoria 
(Preller ‘Rém. Myth.’ 609).—As in Skt. a secondary verbal-stem has 
been formed in Latin from which come pot-ens and pot-2-ri. For the 
Oscan forms see Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 356.— Of the compound deo- 
7érn-s and its feminine no less than five explanations have been given, 
which agree only in translating the second part of the two words by 
‘master,’ ‘mistress,’ viz. (1) from the mythical Ddsd-patni, tradi- 
tionally ‘mistress of the foes’ (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 464, Max Miiller v. 
151), but according to Benfey (ix. 110) and the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ ‘ having 
the demons as rulers,’ and hence strange to the meaning of the Greek 
words; (2) from Skt. gds-pati-s ‘master of the family’ (Benfey u. s.) 
with an inconceiveable change of sound; (3) from Skt. sédas-pati-s 
(Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 136) literally ‘master of the seat’ (sédas= os), 
i.e. ‘of the settlement,’ a sense which is not quite established for the 
word, besides the unusual loss of the initial syllable ; (4) from the Skt. 
dam-pati-s ‘master of the house’ (Benfey u.s. ‘ Pet. Dict.’), so far as 
the sense goes, excellent, but without giving a sufficient explanation 
of the syllable dec-, which is far enough from dédyuo, 66; (5) from the 
Zend danhu-partt ‘master of a district’ (Pott W. i. 240), so far satis- 
factory that Zd. h points to an older s, but not without difficulties 
arising from the meaning and derivation of the former word (Skt. 
ddés-ju ‘barbarian,’ ‘non-Aryan’). More in Van. 450.—For dec- 
now cp. ‘Greek Verb’ p. 239. 


378. Root mpa mi-u-mpn-pi (inf. mipmpd-var), mpy-0-w 
burn, é-7pyn-c-ev (Hom.) blew, caused to stream, 
mpn-ddv (st. mpndov) burn, sore, mpn-o-THp flash 
of lightning, storm, zpyn-paivea blow fiercely. 

ChSl. pal-i-t2 burn, pla-my (gen. pla-men-e) flame, 
pe-pel-% ashes, Lith. pel-ena-¢ (plur.) ashes. 


Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 104, Walter xii. 377.— Both consider par as 
the root, and the Skt. roots prush, plush ‘ burn’ as expansions with 
a dulling of a to uw. The special connexion of the ideas ‘blow,’ 
‘puff up,’ ‘cause to stream out,’ and ‘burn’ is discussed in ‘ Studien ’ 
iy. 228 (cp. Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’ i. 105).—Cp. Pott W.1. 249, Fick 1°. 665. 


379. mpdo-s, mpav-s (Ion. mpy-v-s) gentle, mpa-d-rn(7)-s 
gentleness, 7pav-v-w make gentle. 

Skt. rt. pri (pri-nd-mi) delight, gladden, rejoice, 

pri-jd-s dear, valued, friendly, pri-ti-s joy, pré- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 341 


man love. — Zd. fri love, prize, fry-a loved, 
friend. 

Goth. fri-j-6n dyamay, frijénd-s pidos. 

ChSl. pri-ja-ti providere, curare, pri-ja-telt friend. 

Bopp ‘GI.’ Pott W. i. 580, Fick i?. 680.— The well-established 
form mpdo-s is of importance for this combination. Before v the « has 
been entirely lost.— apa: seems to come from pe as aid (No. 302) 
from root idh; and to this was added the suffix v, mpaj-vs. The 
length of the a is to be explained just as in the verbs in -do, *pa-to-s 
contracted mpa-o-s is expanded by the suffix -vo, like aiptA-io-s from 
aivwdo-s. Otherwise Konr. Zacher ‘De nom. in aos’ p. 77; he goes 
back to the OHG. frawjan ‘rejoice, which is not so near in 
meaning. 

380. mp6 before, rpd-repo-s prior, mpa-To-s (Dor. mparos) 
primus, wpé-po-s the foremost, rpv-ravi-s prince, 
headman, mp-iy sooner, before, rpw-i early, 7pé-nv 
(Dor. mpév) before that, the day before yesterday, 
Tpo-cow, 1Tpd-cw, Top-cw, 7bpepw forwards, forth, 
afar. 

Skt. pra- (only a prefix) fore-, pra-tha-md-s the first, 284 
pur-va-s the fore, pra-tdr early in the morning. 
— Zd. prefix fra, frd fore-, forth-. 

Lat. prod, prod, prae, pr-ior, pris-tinu-s, pris-cu-s, 
pri-mu-s, pran-diu-m, porro. — Umbr. Ose. pru, 
pro, Umbr. pre=prae, per-ne before, per-naio 
anterior, -per for (?), pro-mo-m primum (?). 

Goth. fru-ma first, frum-ist in the first place; OHG. 
JSur-iro prior, fur-isto princeps, fruo early. 

ChSl. pra-, pro-, pré- fore, pra-vyj primus; Lith. 
pra- fore-, by-, pro- through, for, pir-ma-s primus, 
pirm (prepos.) before. 

Olr. ro, ru (1) verbal particle, ro char amavit, (2) in- 
tensive particle ro-mdr nimis magnus; re(n) ante 
rem-suidigud praepositio, ream antea. 

Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gr.’ iii. 499, Pott i% 541, Benf. i. 137 f., Schleicher 
‘Kel.’ 119, 121, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 397, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ i. 311.— Cp. 
mapa, mapos No. 346, 347, between which words and many of those 
here quoted the line of demarcation vanishes. All conjectures as to 
their origin are extremely uncertain, but we may perhaps with Bopp 
regard the form pra (Zend frd) as an instrumental case, accompanied 


34.2 BOOK II. 


by the Lat. prd-d as an ablative; for which prae (pra-t) would supply 
the locative.— mpiv = mpo-w is for mpo-sov, as the Lat. pris- = prius for 
pro-ios (cp. mpet in mpei-yus, mpéo-Bu-s below p. 479) comparative, pri- 
mu-s superlative of po. Corssen’s differing view (‘ Beitr.’ 434), ac- 
cording to which the locative form prae is the basis of all the Latin 
words, appears to me imprcbable, if only because it would do away 
with the identity of pris- and mpiv.— pran-diu-m ‘properly that 
early in the day’ (die-s). — mpo-t (Brugman ‘Stud.’ iv. 154) probably 
for mpof-t, closely connected with ChSl. prii-vyj, Skt. pur-va-s. We 
may add mpai-¢0-s used in a different sense, cp. p. 619. To the same 
stem pra-va, pra-vi we may refer mpépa ‘the fore-part of the ship..— 
Hom. mpeoow (adv.) from the stem mpo-r7jo (suffix rjo = Skt. tya cp. vr-r10-s 
No. 393), shortened to mpé-cw. For rép-co, réppo, and Lat. porro cp. 
Siegismund ‘Stud.’ v. 158. The Doric zpavés, rpayns, Homer. mpyvis 
= Lat. pré-nu-s, and mpnoy, rpav ‘ headland,’ ‘ height,’ to which Fick i*. 
663 adds Skt. pravand-s ‘slope,’ as adjective ‘inclined,’ ‘ steep,’ per- 
haps all go back to the latter form as their base. — Ir. ro (Z*. 411, 
864) reminds us of the Lat. prd, but has lost no consonant, for it 
aspirates; ve had originally a final nasal (re m-bds ‘ante mortem’ Z?. 
641), like co(m), a(7): rem- (Z*. 878) reminds us of the Lith. pirm, and 
is distinct from rzam which contains a diphthong in the stem-syllable. 
Op. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 13. [Moore’s ‘ Windisch’ § 251.] 


381. mpo-ri, mpd-s to, beside, rpéc-Oe(v) in front, before. 
Skt. prd-ti (prefix and prep. with acc. and abl.) 
towards, after, to, with. 
ChSl. pro-ti, proti-va ad, Lett. prette. 


Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gramm.’ ii. 500, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 120, Pott. 17. 268.— 
On the three Homeric forms zpori, roti, mpés I. Bekker ‘ Hom. Bl.’ i. 
285 497. The nine different Greek forms of this preposition have been 
carefully investigated by Baunack ‘Stud.’ x. 101 ff.: there are four 
with p, viz. mport (Homeric, perhaps also Aeolic), mopri (Cretan), 
mepti (Pamphylian), mpés (Ionic and Attic), and five without p, viz. 
mort (Homeric and Doric), mér (Doric), 7é (Locrian, Laconian), més 
(Arcadian, Cyprian), moi (Argive). The first four may be traced 
back to the primitive form prdét, retained in Skt., an evident expan- 
sion of pra = mpé, just as easily as the last five to pati (OPers. patiy, 
Zd. paite ‘to,’ ‘on,’ Sat’). It is more difficult to answer the question 
whether prati and pati are originally identical, as I have hitherto 
maintained with confidence, or quite distinct, as is the view of Pott 
1’, 272, and recently of Baunack. There is not the slightest trace of 
any difference in meaning. ‘There is also no lack of examples of an 
occasional loss of p in Greek, especially after a vowel and before a con- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 343 


sonant, as in vdar-os, oxar-ds (st. bdap-r, oxap-r), eykamy’ émt-Kapmia, 
Badioro’ Bpadvratror, Sackdfer (i.e. *Sapoxdf{ec—Spackdfer), stmopevyer 
Hesych. Cp. also Lat. pédere beside mépdex, Hence from the 
Cretan mopri we can very well arrive at the ordinary Doric sort. 
Certainly in that case the Argive woi was necessarily formed after- 
wards by epenthesis from mori. But the Iranic phonetic laws, as 
Baunack shows on p. 107, exclude the origination of patiy, pacte 
from pratt or “parti. I quite see the weight that is to be attached 
to this argument for the separation. The common origin of pratz 
and pati can be maintained only by assuming that even before Iranic 
branched off from Sanskrit two forms had been produced, and that 
the Greek rejection of the p was brought about quite independently 
of this on Greek soil.—Following Corssen’s explanation (‘ Beitr.’ 87) 
we may regard port (Umbr. pur ‘ Aufr. and Kirchh.’ ii. 271) as the 
Latin representative of this preposition, occurring with different 
phonetic modifications in pol-lingo, por-ricio, pos-sideo, po-no (for 
posino). 
382. Root ntv, nut, rTv-@ spit, r7v-ado-y spittle, ri7-i¢- 
spue, spirt, \v7T7T-@ spue. 

Skt. shtiv or shttv, (shtiv-G-mi) spuo. 

Lat. spu-o, spu-tu-m, pitu-ita. 

Goth. speiva spuo, OHG. spiwan, spihan [ModG. 

speien| spue. 
Lith. spidu-j-u, spjau-d-au spue, Ch8l. plju-ja arvo. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 1362, 1367, Benf. i. 416, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 
33, Grassmann xi. 11, 17, 34. —I assume syjw as the original form, 
preserved in Goth. and Lith. Thence we get in Chl. by the re- 
jection of the initial s and the insertion of the 7 common before j 
plju, in Latin by the loss of the ¢ spu, in Skt. by the shifting of the 
organ and the weakening of the wu into v shtiv. — Gk. rrv is therefore 
for onjv. For + originating by assimilation in ¢ cp. xéés=(g)hyjas 
(No. 193): the form Wirr is due to metathesis and the rejection of 
the j. In ciai: rica Madu [cp. M. Schmidt, Hesych. s. v., ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ix. 367] the labial has entirely disappeared. urifo is probably a 
frequentative for mru-ri-¢o (cp. meipn-ri-(w). + pritu-ita seems to point to 
a verbal-stem pitu for sputu, to be compared with metu-o, futu-o, 
unless indeed it is borrowed, so corresponding to a lost mrury (cp. on 
No. 370).— The root appears aspirated, perhaps by the influence of 286 
the original s, in the Doric ém-6i-05-o despuo. Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 37 
has a different view on the course of the phonetic changes.—Cp. p. 697. 


383. Root mu av-6-m make to rot, mv-6-0-par rot, mud-«- 


34.4, BOOK II. 


dav (st. -Cov) rottenness, [lv6-6, Tb Owv (?), wb-0-v 
pus, 7vé-@ bring to a head. 

Skt. py ( puja-tt) to grow foul, to stink, puja-s, 
pit- -ti pus, pu-ti-s, puti-ka-s foul, stinking. — Zd. 
pw stink, pui-ti rottenness. 

Lat. puis, pus-cinu-s, pur-u-lentu-s, put-eo, puter, 
put-i-du-s. 

Goth. fil-s [Mod. Germ. faul] foul, ON. fai putredo, 
fiki foetor. 

Lith. pu-v-w (inf. pw-ti) rot (intrans.), pui-d-au make 
to rot, pw-let pus. 

Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. i. 1117, Benf. i. 270.— On the ¢ of put-e-o 
‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 335, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 87, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 79. On 
the 6 in 7v6-@ see above p. 63. 


384. mvé with the fist, mvx-rn-s, miy-pay-o-s boxer, 
muy-py fist, boxing. — Lat. pug-nu-s, pug-il, 
pugillu-s, pugill-ari-s. — OHG. fu-st fist. — ChSl. 
pe-stt pugnus. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ and Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 120, Benf. ii. 78 compare Skt. 
mushti ‘fist,’ the m of which then must have originated ina p. But 
where are there analogies for this ? The sé in the northern languages, 
before which the guttural has been lost as in Goth. vaurstv épyov 
(No. 141), reminds us of the st of mathstu-s ‘dung’ (No. 175). — wv€ 
looks like an abbreviated dat. pl. It seems probable that mvy-av 
‘cubit’ is of the same origin—perhaps with an amplifying suffix— 
from the similar use of rvypn (whence Ivypaior) and rvyay as a measure 
(Pollux B 158).— As the fist is the firmly closed hand, it is natural 
to regard muk-vd-s (Hom. muk-t-vd-s) as related. The g in the Latin 
would then be weakened from & Fick ‘Or. and Occ.’ iii. 116 con- 
jectures the like weakening for Skt. pig-a-s ‘band,’ ‘troop,’ piitg-a-s 
‘heap,’ ‘mass,’ which are connected in meaning, while in 1°. 154 he 
very boldly gives ‘stick’ Lat. puwngere as the etymon. 


385. zip (st. mvp) fire, rup-e-r0-s fever, mup-a& funeral pile, 
mup-oo-s brand, torch, wuppo-s flame-coloured. — 
Armen. hur. — Umbr. pir fire, Lat. prii-na glow- 
ing coals. —OHG. fuir, fur fire. — Bohem. pyr 

glowing embers. 
Pott W. i. 1103; the connexion he supposes with pd ‘ purify’ (cp. 
Lat. pii-ru-s pu-tu-s and Skt. pa-vakds adj. ‘clear,’ ‘bright,’ subst. 
‘fire’) as Plut. ‘Quaest. Rom.’ 1 ‘76 wip xaaiper’ shows, is not incon- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 345 


sistent with the Greek view. In the Vedic use of the root pz, espe- 
cially as described by Grassmann, the meaning ‘to make clear,’ 
‘bright,’ comes out so plainly, as to appear to confirm the relation of 
pu to mip, the more so as the Goth. fu-na ‘fire’ points to the same 
root. — Certainly the form mvip quoted from Simonides of Amorgos 
by Herodian (ii. 919) points in another direction. Joh. Schmidt 
‘Voc.’ ii. 272 ff. starts from mvpo-d-s, as he divides it, the root of | 
which he compares with the Skt. prush ‘ besprinkle,’ ‘ burn’ (cp. No. 287 
378), plush ‘burn :’ according to him mvp is a shorter form for wups(*), 
whence svp-1, by epenthesis mv-i-p(c), and hence by contraction zip. 
The Lat. pri-na he traces back with Corssen 117. 1004 to prus-na. 
Even with this explanation much remains obscure. — On the Umbr. 
pir see Aufr. and Kirchh. 1. 36, 11. 112. 


386. mvpd6-s wheat, mip-vo-s wheaten bread, rupyv kernel, 
stone of fruit. — AS. fyrs lolium. — ChSl. pyro 
dAvpa, Bohem. pyr couch-grass, Lett. pirji wheat, 
Lith. pirat winter wheat. 


Kuhn ‘ Weber’s Ind. Studien’ i. 356 f., Pott i7. 109, Hehn 489. — 
The first assumes the idea of corn to be the fundamental one, tracing 
it back to the Skt. push ‘to nourish.’ This seems to me doubtful, 
because of mupyv.— The Syracusan by-form omvpds (Cramer ‘ Anecd.’ 
i, p. 362, 18) would lead us in quite a different direction, if this were 
not quite isolated. 


387. ma@do-s foal, mwd-fo-y young foal, young. — Lat. 
pullu-s. — Goth. fula(n), OHG. folo me@dXos. 


Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 396, Pott i’. 193, W. i. 247, where also (Marci-) 
por, pu-er, pu-era, pu-su-s, pu-sa, pi-pu-s, pu-pa, pu-pilla, pu-tu-s, 
‘boy,’ Skt. po-ta-s, po-ta-ka-s ‘young,’ pu-trd-s ‘son’ are compared, 
to which Biicheler ‘Rhein. Mus.’ 1878 p. 15 adds the Oscan stem 
pu-klo ‘child.’—Benfey ii. 73 adds also ma-i(d)-s, which he is cer- 
tainly right in explaining, with O. Miiller ad Fest. p. 399, as 
maf-u(5)-s, on the ground of the forms mots, rats occurring on vases 
(KAAOZ HO TIAYS, KAAE HE MAYS ‘Revue Archéol.’ 1868 p. 347). 
Lat. pu-er is for an older pov-er (Schwabe ‘ De demin.’ 40), and hence 
is equivalent to the Gk. maf-t-s in the stem-syllable. — Thus we 
should be brought to a root pu ‘beget’ (cp. pubes), and the expanded 
pu-sh ‘cause to grow up, ‘flourish’ (Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 836). Cp. Kuhn 
‘Weber’s Ind. Studien’ i. 357, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 248. It is natural 
to compare with this, besides the Skt. pu-trd-s already mentioned, 
which from its active suffix must be taken as ‘begetter,’ ‘ continuer of 
the family,’ also the Skt. puéimans ‘man,’ and the Lat. puim-ilu-s, 


288 


346 BOOK II. 


pimil-io ‘mannikin, ‘dwarf,’ though Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 351 in- 
geniously compares this with mvypaios (No. 385). Like m@-)o-s for 
moF-do-s (cp. Couds p. 626), po-mu-m might be for pov-mu-m ‘ grown’ 
(otherwise Corssen i”. 342 [connecting it with No. 350 ‘the nourish- 
ing’]), similarly wo-ia, réa ‘ grass,’ and perhaps prae-pu-tiu-m ‘fore- 
growth.’ Quite otherwise Fick 1°. 678, 666. Cp. No. 351. 


888. odAm-vy€ (st. cadm-vyy) trumpet, cad7i¢-w sound the 
trumpet. — Lith. szvzlp-i% whistle (vb.), suilp-iné 
whistle (subst.) (Lett. szvilp-a) (2). 


Pott. i4, 226 ‘although in no other instance sz corresponds to a 
Gk. co.’ The suffix is individualizing, as in pdppeyé, Aaty&, mraorey€ : 
in the stem cad has arisen from ofadr. Ought we to consider MHG. 
swal, swalwe ‘ cithara, and swal, swalewe ‘hirundo’ as from the same 
root, or to refer them to Skt. svar ‘ sound’ (cdpryé No. 519)? Schleicher 
regards the Lith. word, which only means ‘to whistle with the 
mouth,’ as onomatopoetic. 


389. Root cnap omaip-, d-oratp-w writhe, quiver.— Skt. 
sphar, sphur (sphur-a-mi), kick away, jerk, quiver, 
tremble, wink, sphur-a-s trembling, sphur-ana-m 
a quivering, vi-sphar-ita-m a jerking. Ad. ¢par go, 
tread with the feet. — Lith. spir-ti strike out, hit, 
fell, spar-dg-ti strike out. 


Pott W. 11. 1, 420, Benf. i. 577 f., Fick i°. 831, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ in, 
324. — The fundamental meaning of the root is that of a ‘ quick 
movement.’ But this developes itself mainly in two directions. In 
the first place it is applied to the feet. So in the verbs quoted 
above. We may add OHG. spor (n) [in the Cape Colony spoor] ‘vesti- 
gium, spor-6n ‘calcitrare, spur-n-an ‘calcitrare,’ ‘offendere,’ ‘im- 
pingere’ (Engl. ‘ spurn’), far-spirn-an ‘to strike with the feet.’ . It 
is probable that the Lat. sper-no, a-spernor are connected with this 
development, either so that the fundamental meaning was ‘strike away 
with the foot,’ or that we may immediately connect it with the Germ. 
sperren, absperren (‘bar off,’ ‘ reject’). The latter view, that of Pott, 
perhaps deserves the preference because of Enn. ‘ Trag.’ v. 244 (V.) ‘ius 
atque aecum sea malis spernit procul.’ Perhaps spwr-iu-s (ep. verstossen 
‘repudiate ’) also belongs here.—In the second place the root is used 
of a motion of the hand. Here we may place omelp-o (omep-j-«) ‘sow,’ 
and also OHG. spriu ‘chaff, and inasmuch as the usage had become 
fixed to denote a scattering motion, dispersing a mass into small parts, 
without any limitation to the hand as the original source of the 
motion, the OHG. sprwojan ‘ sputter,’ ‘ drizzle.’ —The common nature 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 347 


of these two ramifications of the meaning comes out most strikingly in 
Germ. springen ‘spring, and sprengen ‘ burst,’ besprengen ‘sprinkle’ 
(OHG. springan) [cp. Eng. ‘spring a mine,’ etc.]. Both verbs, along 
with spargo, belong to a root expanded by &, spark, sprak, which met 
us before under No. 359 b. Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 407. Add orapacow 
(st. omapax) ‘tear, ‘drag,’ with an inserted a.—From the primary 
root spar by the softening of the 7 comes spal, preserved in za- 
ondd-n ‘fine meal,’ with the by-form wa-rdd-n. After the loss of the 
initial s we have pal, preserved in dA-n, poll-en, pul-vi-s and mad-tv-w 
‘strew,’ ‘bestrew.’ This phase of the root may also occur in pal-ea 
‘chaff, which recalls both OHG. spriw and Skt. pdl-dla-s ‘straw, 
pal-ava-s ‘chaff’? Cf. Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ ii. 5. As pal also is 
expanded by a &, we have pal-k, pal-a-k preserved in maddooo akin 
in meaning to rad-vv-w. Both verbs mean to ‘ besprinkle,’ ‘ scatter,’ 
the former also to ‘strew.’ We may add wadcvew ‘to decoy,’ of birds 
which are lured. Corsgsen ‘ Beitr.’ 308, 319 ‘ Nachtr.’ 296 mentions 
other Latin words, which we ought perhaps to add to the list, but 
with considerable deviations, discussed especially in i?. 476, 526. 
Cp. No. 344 b. 

389 b. omdp-rTo-v rope, tow, o7etpa (for oep-.a) winding, 
cord, plait, ovup-i-s plaited basket.— Lat. spor-ta 
basket, spor-tula. — Lith. sparta-s band. 

Fick 1°. 832, Van. 1186. 

390. omdnv milt, orAdyyx-vo-v entrail.—Skt. plthdn (also 
pliha, plihan), Zd. cpereza milt. — Lat. lien.— ON. 
lungu (nom., stem lungan), OHG. lungd, lungina 
lung. — ChSl. slez-ena, Lith. bluz-ni-s milt. — Ir. 
selg f. milt. 

Bopp ‘GIl.,’ Pott ii. 270, Benf. i. 602 f., Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 13, 
Stokes ‘ Ir. Gloss.’ 1012, Bugge ‘ Stud.’ iv. 340, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ 
i, 32. — The fundamental form is splagh-an : in Skt. and Lat. the s has 
fallen away and the stem-vowel is accidentally weakened in the same 
manner, in Slavonic and Irish the p has fallen out, while ChSl. 2 
normally replaces the guttural, in Lith. after the loss of s py has been 
weakened into 6, finally in the Teutonic languages of the three 
consonants only the third has remained. — In omAdyx-vo-» the guttural 
of the root appears united with a prefixed nasal, the origin of which 
is the nasal suffix. The remarkable loss of x in omAnv for omday-ev 
finds an analogy in 4 ‘he said’ (No. 611). — Cpereza (Fick 1°. 253) 
Haug, ‘ Zand.-Pahlavi Glossary’ p. 10, as Hiibschmann was kind 
enough to point out. 


391. wr-vo-s sleep. — Skt. svdp-na-s sleep, dream, rt. 


348 BOOK II. 


svap sleep, caus. to send to sleep. — Zd. gap sleep, 
gaf-na (m.) sleep.— Lat. som-nu-s, somniu-m, sop-or, 
sdp-i-o. — ON. svef-n somnus, somnium [OEng. 
swevene dream, AS. swefen|, OHG. swebjan sopire. 
— ChSl. sti-nt% (for stip-nit) somnus, stp-a-ti 
dormire, Lith. sép-na-s dream. — OIr. swan, Cymr. 
hun sleep (Z?. 123); OlIr. no foad he slept. 


Bopp. ‘GL.’ Pott i. 259, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 303, Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xx. 40.— Um-vo-s for ovm-vo-s from the shorter form preserved 
in the Skt. participle swp-td-s and elsewhere; while sdp-or is 
for svép-or, sdp-i-o, like the Skt. causative sudpa-jad-mi, with addition 
of sound in the stem-syllable. —I have omitted Goth. slép-an, OHG. 
sldfan etc. as not akin, because of the 7: their analogues OHG. slaph 
‘slack,’ etc. are quoted by Diefenbach (‘ Goth. Wtb.’ ii. 268). So 
Lottner ‘Ztschr.’ xi. 164.—Zd. gap with normal change from 
svap. — svap-na-s is one of the not very numerous nouns which have 
been preserved completely and with unchanged meaning, without any 
other than the normal phonetic changes, in all the families of speech. 
— From svap nothing is preserved in the Irish verb but fo-, i.e. va: 
hence with reduplication the 3 pl. perf. feotar ‘ they slept :’ ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xxill. 207. Of an initial sv sometimes s is preserved in Irish, some- 
times f, ep. Stokes ‘ Goid.”’ p. 87. 

392. wmép, wmeip over, tmep-Oev above, Umrepo-s pestle, 
tmépa upper rope.—Skt. updri as adv. above, 
thereon, as prep. with loc. acc., gen. over. Zd. 
upairt as ady. above, as prep. with acc. and in- 
strum. over. — Lat. s-uper. — Goth. ufar trép, 
wfard thereon. 

Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gr.’ 111. 493, Pott i°. 677. — Evident as is the kin- 
ship of these words, there are many hitherto unsolved difficulties in 
the way. For instance, as to the form, the s of super is unexplained ; 
for while the Greek rough breathing appears before every v and 
theiefore may be an unorganic addition, the Latin s cannot possibly 
be ‘a purely phonetic prefix.’ Hence Pott conjectures in this s a 
trace of a prefixed preposition, and in fact now the Goth. ws, as the 
Graeco-Italic representative of which we are to learn to recognize em. 
Are we to suppose that swper and sub, from es-uper, es-ub stand for 
ens uper, ens-ub (evs, eis), so that in in-seper we should have from a 

290 later period in language the same prepositions compounded, which 
had formed an alliance long before ?— From the side of the meaning, 
the interchange between ‘above’ and ‘below’ is surprising, for 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 349 


Ym-aro-s (cp. ipod, dyndds, dporos) corresponds to the Lat. swm-mu-s 
for sup-mu-s (cp. suprad, supré-mu-s) and to the OHG. oba over, 
whilst in form it belongs rather to imé than to tnép, and conversely, 
while the Skt. wpa-md-s ‘the highest’ may be eompared with Lat. 
sum-mu-s, the Skt. wpa-ra-s ‘the lower’ cannot be connected in 
meaning with Zd. wpa-ra ‘the upper,’ with swperu-s and trépa. 
Attempts to solve this difficulty are made by Pott 17.645. In any 
case, treip has originated from itmep: by metathesis of the «. dzepn- 
davéwv (A 694), brepn-pavo-s (Pind. imepd-avo-s), tmepn-pdvera are to be 
explained by supposing that tmepy contains the adjective stem tzepo 
with epic lengthening (cp. ven-yerns, édapy-Bddo-s and ‘ Elucidations’ 
p- 165, E. T.): démepy-pavo-s means therefore ‘ appearing,’ ‘ showing 
oneself excessive :’ cp. ryAde-aviyjs, AevKo-paryns. For vBpi-s p. 540. 
Probably OIr. for, Corn. war, oar, Cymr. guor ‘super’ for an original 
*u(p)ar belong here (Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ i. 309). 
393. vid, vrai under.—Skt. vipa as adv. thither, as prep. 
with acc. towards, with loe. to, on, with instr. with 
(in the sense of accompanying). Zd. upa with ace. 
to, with loc. over. — Lat. sub, sub-ter. — Goth. uf 
sub, OHG. oba super.—ChSl. pa, po secundum, 
post, po-d% sub, Lith. pa, po under, after, with. 
Cp. No. 392. Weber ‘Ind. Studien’ ii. 406. — épa denotes in Skt. 
according to the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ ‘ the opposite of dpa far, away,’ and thence 
attains the meaning (among others) of ‘under’ in the sense of subjec- 
tion, and ‘over’ in the sense of mounting. sus for sub-s in sus-tult, 
su(s)-r(2)g-0, sus-cip-t0, sus-que de-que, su(s)-(vo)-rsu-marrives, perhaps 
by reason of its s which seems to have an ablative force, at its mean- 
ing of ‘from below,’ i.e. ‘towards a place above.’ Pott 17. 161: ep. 
Corssen ii2. 580.— Also vm-rio-s, equivalent to swp-inu-s ‘ upturned, 
‘open,’ ‘ bent back,’ is akin. The suffix is the same as in the Skt. 
upa-tja-s ‘lying underneath’ (cp. mepi-aads No. 359, mpd-cow No. 380). 
—If Ir. for is for *u(p)ar, wpa occurs also in Olr. fo, Cymr. guo 
sub (Ebel. ‘ Beitr.’ 1. 309). 


B 


A Greek 8 corresponds only in a very few cases to an 
Indo-Germanic 6, which in those cases is represented in 
Sanskrit, Latin, and Slavo-Lithuanian by b. No example is 
found of the Teutonic p which was to have been expected. 
(Cp. Grassmann ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 122.) 


350 BOOK II. 


394. BdpBapo-s strange, foreign, BapBap-i¢-w speak or 
behave like a foreigner.— Skt. barbard-s stutter- 
ing, curly, foreign. — Lat. balbu-s, balbu-ti-o. 

291 The fact that the Skt. barbara-s ought, as it appeared, to be 
written with a v was formerly an objection to the comparison of the 
word instituted by Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 381 ff. But ace. to the ‘Pet. Dict.’ 
v. 1644 the 6 is the better reading. In the plural the Sanskrit word 
serves to denote ‘non-Aryan nations.’ — BapBapo-s occurs first in 
BapBapépova. B 867. FPictet ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 330, ‘Orig.’ i. 57 compares 
BopBopigew ‘rumble’ (of noises in the bowels), the Persian barbar 
‘chattering,’ ‘foolish,’ and Irish analoga. Without doubt then the 
Greeks named the Barbarians from their strange-sounding language. 

395. BAn-x7 bleating, BAnyx-d-s a bleating sheep, BA7n- 
xa-o-pat bleat.— Lat. bala-re, bald-tu-s. — OHG. 
bld-z-u bleat. — ChSl. blé-ja-ti, ble-k-a-ti, ble-k- 
ot-a-ti balare. 


Pott W. i. 265, Benf. ii. 70, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 122.— The root is 
in the syllable bla, softened into bala, lengthened by different con- 
sonants. The x seems to have arisen from the inchoative ox, cp. 
p- 710. 

395 b. BodABd-s onion, bulb. — Lat. bulbu-s, bulb-dsu-s, 
bulb-atio, bulb-ulus. — Lett. bumbul-s knob. 


Benf. ii. 304 with much that has no connexion. — That the 
Lat. bulbu-s is not borrowed seems to me probable on account of its 
derivatives. 


395 c. BouBvri-s moupodrAvé (Hes.) i.e. bubble. — Lat. 
bulla, bullire, bullare, bullatu-s.— Lith. bumbul-s 
bubble. 


Pott 1°. 213. 


396. Bpaxv-s short (compar. Bpdoowr), Bpdye-a shallows, 
Bpaxd-rn(7)-s shortness, Bpayv-v-w shorten. 
Lat. brev-i-s, brevi-a shallows, brevi-ta(t)-s. 


Pott W. i. 942, Benf. 11. 71.— On the comparative Bpaccar 
(K 226), to which the corresponding superlative Bpdy-.oro-s occurs in 
Pindar, and its older form fpax-iwy perhaps preserved in fpayiov 
‘upper arm’ (Pollux B 138 éri éort rod myews Bpaxirepos), cp. ‘Ind. 
lect. Kil. aest.’ a. 1857 p. iv. and p. 672.— brevi-s: Bpayuv=lévi-s : 
édayv (No. 168). The comparison of the ChSl. briiz-v rayts is open to 
objection, because the meaning does not agree. All the same briz- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 351 


éja(f.) ‘shallows’ is remarkably like Bpdy-ea brevia in sound.—Fick 1°. 
684, Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xvii. 269 refer the Gk. and Lat. word to a root 
bargh which occurs in Skt. as barh (also varh) with the meaning ‘ tear 
out,’ ‘tear off. In this case then Bpaxi-s like curtu-s would properly 
mean ‘ torn off,’ 


397. Bv-a-s, BU-¢a screech-owl. — Lat. bu-bo(n). — OHG. 
adwo bubo.— Lith. yva sereech-owl. 


Benf. ii. 62, Forstem. ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 50.— Bi¢a is most likely for 
Bv-ca, hence Buga-s (st. Buta-vr=Bufa-Fevr) and Bufavr-10-y= Uhlenheorst 
(near Hamburg) (7). Cp. Fick ii*. 177. 


p 


Greek ¢ corresponds to Indo-Germanie and Sanskrit bh, 
Zend b, Latin f and (in the middle of a word) 6b, Teutonic, 
Slavo-Lithuanian and Old-Irish 0. 


398. Root ad¢ aor. 7A¢g-0-v I won, dAg-dév-w win, ar dheci- 
Bora winning oxen, dr\¢n-pa wages. 

Skt. rt. rabh seize, take (later form /abh), d-rabh 
take hold of, undertake, fashion, rbhvi-s clever, 
apt, artist, fashioner, rbhu-mdt apt. 

Lat. lab-6s (lab-or), labdrio-su-s, laboro. 

Goth. arb-aith-s komos, OHG. arabeit (Germ. Arbeit), 
Goth. arbaid-jan komdv. 

Bohem. rob-i-ti laborare, ChSl. rab-% (rob-%) servus, 
rab-ota work. 


The original form of the root is arbh. The meaning ‘ lay hold of,’ 
‘operate,’ ‘ work’ appears clearly throughout. I was led to connect 
the above words by the use given in the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ 1. 1058 of the 
Skt. rbha%, which is there referred to the root rabh (cp. too Miklosich 
‘Radices’ s. v. rab; otherwise Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 109). On the 
connexion of the Teutonic, Latin, and Slavonic words see Grimm 
‘Worterb.’ s. v. ‘Arbeit,’ and Schleicher ‘Ksl.’ 131. Cp. Pott W. 
v. 355, Pictet ii. 397. A connexion of the Indian Lbhus with the 
Teutonic Hifs —OHG. alp. gen. alb-es, AS. alf—elaborately main- 
tained by Kuhn (vide supra) is possible even if we accept this ety- 
mology. — Homer’s dvépes dddpnorai, in spite of K, Fr, Hermann’s 


352 BOOK II. 


ingenious derivation from dg. and the root ¢6, which is also supported 
by Déderlein (‘ Gloss.’ p. 28), are no ‘eaters of meals,’ as I. Bekker 
‘Hom. BI.’ i. 113 properly translates the word supposing that to be 
its derivation, but are to be taken in the sense in which the old 
grammarians took the words — that of ‘earners,’ ‘workers’ (cp. 
épxn-o-77-s), ‘qui victum quaerunt, qui quaestum faciunt, the 
laborious side of the earning process being considered, and contrasted 
with the easy life of the Gods’ (Bekker p. 112). With this agrees 
Aesch. ‘Sept.’ 770, where the dvipav addnorav ddBos adyav raxuvbeis 
becomes nothing less than comic if we understand it of ‘ bread or meal 
eating men.’ — Fick i*. 192 differs in many respects. For the forms 
beginning with / (Adg-vpo-v, AapB-dve) ep. p. 531. 
399. addo-s a white rash. — Lat. albu-s, Umbr. alfu, 
Sabine alpu-s. — OHG. elb-iz swan, Elba (the 
river Elbe). 


Pott i’. 112, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 109, who is doubtless right in com- 
paring also dAqu, a@ddu-ro-v ‘barley meal, for dddu: adkgpd-s=Goth. 
hvait-t ‘wheat:’ hveit-s ‘white.’ — Corssen ‘Ztschr.’ ill, 263 con- 
nects the Oscan town-name Alafa-terna, another name of Nuceria. 
Nearer still are Alba Longa and Albunea. Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 4 ‘ Albula 
Tiberis fluvius dictus ab albo colore, so that Alba, ’Adpeds (cp. 

293 IInveids No. 362) and Hlbe are perhaps one and the same. By the 
same author the Alpes too were explained to be so called ‘a candore 
nivium. Others it is true prefer the derivation from a Keltic word, 
for ‘Gallorum lingua alti montes Alpes vocantur’ Serv. ad ‘ Georg.’ 
ii. 474. Even Albis and Alba are derived by Mahn (‘ Etymol. 
Unters.’ Berl. 1859 p. 19) from the same source; to the former the 
meaning ‘ mountain-stream ’ is given, to the latter that of ‘mountain,’ 
with but small probability in both cases. — As an adj. we find dgés in 
Hesych. — drgovs* Aevkovs, — as a substantive it denotes the same skin 
disease which is elsewhere called even or even, Lat. vitiligo. The 
Lat. albago is similar. — The by-form d\wdé-s (dhadots* NevKods Hesych.) 
is discussed at p. 729. — In Old Irish Alba, Alpa (gen. Alban) denotes 
Scotland. 

400. audi about, audis on both sides, duaupidio-s (Aesch.) 
different. — Skt. abhé as adv. hither, near, as 
prep. with acc. to, against, round, over, abhé-tas 
on both sides, about, round about. OPers. abish 
at hand. Zend aibi, aiwi as adv. over, moreover, 
as prep. with dat. or loc. over.— Lat. amb-, am-, 
an-, Umbr. am-, an-, amp-r, Osc. amf-r. — OS. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 3853 


umbi, OHG. wmpi.—ChSl. ob&% trans, per, o circa. 
— OGallic ambi, Cymr. am, OIr. imb-, imm circum 
(Z?. 64). 

Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ iii. 490, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 124, Pott i”. 579, Fick 1°. 
491.— The meaning of the Skt. abhz is considerably at variance with 
the rest, but the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ i. 328 rightly gives it, on the ground of 
the word abhiias, the very same primary meaning assumed by Butt- 
mann in the ‘ Lexilogus’ (il. 217 ff.) for audi and dudis. We may 
therefore regard the connexion with dude as proved. Cp. Lottner 
‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 21, Hiibschmann ‘ Zur Casuslehre’ 308. The s in dudis 
may be compared with that in ¢& ex, ap abs, Lat. sus- for subs-, etc. 
(see above p. 37). The Umbr. amp-r, amb-r, Osc. amf-r, Bréal ‘ Tables 
Engubines’ p. 183 explains, perhaps rightly, as a kind of comparative 
formation, like 7m-ter. For Mommsen’s derivation, drawn (‘ Unterit. D.’ 
p. 249) from a different source, is artificial. Zeyss ‘ Ztschr.’ xvi. 381 
tries to identify this Old Italian amfr- with the first part of the Latin 
anfr-actu-s, according to which it belongs not to frangere but to 
agere. The close proximity of its use to the meaning of amb-dge-s 
seems to me to prove this. [But cp. Corssen i°. 397]. — Corssen 
‘ Beitr.’ 316 regards annu-s as a weakening of am-nu-s, whence soll- 
emni-s ‘quod omnibus annis praestari debet’ Fest. 298, accordingly 
originally ‘ circle,’ whence again annu-lu-s. Even omnt-s may have 
something to do with the root. 


401. dude, dupd-repor both. — Skt. ubhau (st. ubha) both, 
ubhd-ja-s on both sides. Zd. uba both. — Lat. 
ambo. — Goth. bai (neut. ba), bajoths both, OHG. 
beidé. — ChSl. oba ambo, Lith. abu both, abe-76-ju 
I doubt. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. v. 281, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 124. Cp. No. 400. — 
The ‘Pet. Dict.’ i. 993 derives the Skt. ubhdw from the rt. ubh 
(ubh-d-mt, wmbh-d-mi), for which they quote the meaning ‘hold 
together ’ and — when compounded with prepositions — ‘ bind.’ Since 
however ubhau cannot be separated from the words compared 
here, and since a never arises from uw, the only way of defending the 
comparison is to suppose the w of the above root to be a dulled am. 

In this way we should arrive at ambh as the common root for all 294 
these words. But cp. Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 260.— On the Skt. w from 
am see Kuhn ‘ Beitrige’ i. 355 ff., Fick 1°. 491, 


402. véd-os, ved-éAn cloud, €vy-vé-vod-e it is cloudy, 
vepo-w make cloudy.—Skt. nébh-as mist, vapour, 
cloud, atmosphere, nabhas-jd-s misty.—Lat. nwb- 

Aa 


394 BOOK II. 


é-s, nib-ilu-s, neb-ula.—ON. nifl-heitm-r, OHG. néb- 
al.—ChSl. neb-o (st. neb-es) caelum, Lith. debes-i-s 
cloud.—Ol. né/, Cymr. niwl cloud, mist. 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott i’. 107, 199, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 408, Benf. 11. 54, 
Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 124. — The verb-stem ved is given by Hesych. also in 
the simple perf. vévope’ vevépora (Lobeck ‘ Rhem.’ 39). In niibes we 
get w@ instead of ¢: it is explained by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ i. 179 to 
be the effect of the nasal that appears m nimbu-s (for nembu-s).— 
Lith. d for n as in devyn? ‘ nine.’ — Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 337 sees in the 
Skt. nth-drd-s ‘mist,’ which he derives from *nabh-Gra-s a complete 
analogy to vep-eAn, neb-ula, OHG. néb-al. — The Ir. nél (Z?. 20) is for 
*nebl-, like dér ‘tear’ for *deer-(No. 10), féen ‘ carriage’ for *fegn- (No. 
169).—All combinations as to the root are unsafe. Grassmann’s 
rt. nabh ‘burst’ (trans.) does not at all suit vévope. Fick 1°. 648 
assumes ‘to hide’ as the primary meaning, and thence arrives also 
at nibere, properly ‘ to veil one’s self.’ 


403. éud-ad6-s navel, boss of a shield. — Skt. n&bh-i-s 
navel, nave (of a wheel), relationship, na@bhi-la-m 
pudenda, pit of the navel. — Lat. wmbil-icu-s. — 
OHG. nab-a nave, nabuléd navel. — OPr. nabis 
nave, navel, Lith. bamba navel. — Olr. imbliu 
navel. 

Bopp. ‘G1. Pott W. in. 108, Benf. i. 118, Stokes, ‘Corm. GI. 
Transl.’ p. 93. — We must assume a Graeco-Italic ombhalo-s, from 
which arose in time.dudadd-s, the Lat. *wmbilu-s, and with a new 
suffix wmbil-icu-s (cp. lect-tca). By it stands umbd(n) ‘boss of a 
shield, which in meaning agrees still more closely with oudadés and 
umbilicus than with the Gk. auBov ‘ the border of a shield,’ ‘ foot of 
a goblet, (au8n whence duBié ‘ goblet’), — It is possible that éudaé too is 
a sort of diminutive from the shorter éudo. For it denotes also the 
‘nipple, then any hard part, and so hard ‘unripe grapes. —While 
then we are brought for Gk. and Lat. to a rt. ambh, the corresponding 
words in the other languages come from a rt. nabh. In Skt. we find 
the rt. nabh (nabhé) with the meaning ‘burst,’ ‘tear.’ Cp. Skt. nabh 
‘mouth’ (of a river) ‘ Pet. Dict.,’ nabh-jd-m ‘nave,’ and Joh, Schmidt 
‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 270. The word ‘ navel’ seems therefore originally to 
have had the meaning a ‘tear,’ ‘break,’ which seems to have given 
rise to the other meanings. — The Ir. zmbliw has in the acc. immlind 


(‘Gild, Lor. Gl.’ 205), 


404. dpp-avo-s orphaned, dpdav-ia orbitas, dppdavif-w 
make an orphan, dppaviory-s one who takes - 


~ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 355 


care of orphans, oppaved-w take care of orphans. 
— Armen. orb orphan.— Lat. orb-u-s, orbare, orbi- 
jicare, orbi-ta(t)-s, or-bi-ttido, Orb-dna. — OHG. 
arb-ja the heir (Germ. der Erbe), arbi inheritance 
(Germ. das Erbe) (2). 


Pott i*, 112, 259, Htibschmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 19, Fick i5, 498. 295 
— Bopp ‘Gl.’ compares the Skt. drbha-s, arbh-akd-s ‘proles,’ 3 
‘natus’ (the former as an adj. acc. to the ‘Pet. Dict. ‘small,’ 
‘insignificant,’ as a subst. ‘boy’—similarly arbhakd-s). In that 
case orbare, ‘bereave of children,’ and then ‘bereave’ generally, 
must have really meant ‘to child’ with a privative meaning like 
‘behead’ for ‘to deprive of the head’ (Germ. kipfen). In all these 
words though the prominent idea is ‘bereft of parents.’ We should 
have to assume that the consciousness of the origin was lost very 
early. — The shorter form dpdé-s is preserved in épgo-B6-Tn-s (dppavav 
enttporos Hesych.), Oppavda-s.— J. Grimm places the Teutonic words 
(‘ Worterb.’ s. v. ‘ Arbeit’) with those discussed at No. 398, so too 
Mikl. ‘ Lex.’ p. 767.— The only point that we can be sure of is the 
correspondence of the Greek and Latin words. — On the latter (with 
the proper name Orf-iu-s) see Corssen i%. 147.— Related to the 
Teutonic words are: the Olr. arbe, orpe n. ‘hereditas,’ com-arpt 
‘coheredes’ no-m-érpimm ‘committo me’ (Z?. 229, 60). Cp. Stokes 
‘Tr. Gl” p. 163, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 173. 


405. 0-dpv-s eyebrow. — Skt. bhri, -bhruva brow. — 
OHG. drdwa, NHG. Braue brow. — Ch8l. brtivt 
(o-bruivt) odpts. — Ir. brai the brows. 

Bopp. ‘GL,’ Pott i4. 111, Benf.i. 100, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 399, Miklos. 
‘Lex.’ — As in the Ch.Sl. obriivt and in the Macedonian dSpoires 
(Hesych. é¢pis) the stem of which ¢8pour resembles the Zd. brvat (fem.), 
the vowel is prothetic. So too Lobeck (‘ Elem.’ i. 84), who in this case 
deigns to consider barbarian tongues, and even agrees with Benfey in 
the comparison of the Lat. fron(t)-s, making it equivalent to ddpvdecs. 
”OOpu-s with the aspirate transformed = ddpt-s, which like édpin (cp. 
ddpvdes) often denotes the ‘edge of a mountain’ (cp. Olr. bra ‘edge’). 
— Kuhn ‘Beitr.’ i. 357 gives a conjecture on the origin of these 
forms. Cp. Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 296.— Besides brat, probably a 
nom. plur. of the stern bru, we have in Irish the gen. dual: cechiar 
a dé briad ‘each of his two eye-brows,’ evidently belonging to Zd. 
brvat. 

406. pod-é-w (Ion. pud-é-w), pop-dv-m sup up, pou-pLa, 
pog-n-pa broth, pow-76-s supped up. 
Aaz 


356 BOOK II. 


Lat. sorb-e-0, sorp-tu-s, sorb-i-tio(n), sorb-ili-s, sorb- 
allare. 
Lith. sreb-i-u, surb-i-% sup up, sriub-d broth, surb- 
éli-s leech. 
Ir. srub muicci a swine’s snout. 
il’. 196, Benf. ii. 12, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 18, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 
336. Here belongs in any case the remarkable povB-ord-s* pédnpua 
Hesych., which Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 214 with Mor. Schmidt takes to 


be Macedonian. — Mikl. ‘ Lex.’ 876 gives representatives of this root 
in later Slavonic languages. 


406 b. Root tp td-7, bp-os web, tdd-w, bpaiv-w weave. 
Skt. vabh in Grna-vabhi-s spider (wool-weaver). 
OHG. wéb-an weave, waba web, bee's cell. 


Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 274, where with Doderlein ‘Gloss.’ $69 v-pvo-s 

(for ip-pvo-s) is assigned to this root; on this supposition we get a 
296 striking explanation of the word, i.e. that it means a ‘ web’ (dodis 
dpvos Od.). But cp. Brugman ‘Stud.’ ix. 256. — id: vabh = tm : svap 
(No. 391). A remnant of the form vabh, the Greek Fag, is retained 

in t¢-np-a-o-pa. Aufrecht establishes thoroughly the application of the 
idea of weaving to creations of the mind. — At p. 60 we discussed 
the origin of the rt. vabh from va. Cp. Pott W. i. 611, Fick 1°. 769. 


407. Root pa on-pi, Pd-oK-w say, Pa-ri-s, Pj-un report, 
gdw-vy voice. — Root gav gdaiv-m shine, show, 
ghav-e-pb-s clear, dav-7 torch, dd-ol-s, dd-o-pa 
appearance. — Root paf g¢d-e (Hom.) appeared, 
b7r6-gav-oi-s glimmer, clearing, Pd-os, pad-os, 
pas (pw-7), Péyy-os light, da-é-0-@ shine, dae- 
iv-w, paew-vo-s (Aeol. ddev-vo-s) shining, da-vd-s 
clear, 71-pav-oK-w@ show. 

Skt. rt. bad (bha-mi) shine, appear, bha-ma-s, bha- 
nw-s brightness, light, bha@s shine, glare, bhash 
speak, bhan speak, bhan (bhdn-ad-mz) Ved. resound. 
—Zd. bd-nu beam, bd-ma splendour. 

Lat. fa-ri, fa-ma, fa-tu-m, fa-s, fa-bu-la, fa-t-eo-r, 
prae-fi-ca(?). — fa-c-ie-s, fac-é-tu-s. — fa-v-illa. 
ChSl. ba-ja-ti fabulari, o-ba-v-a-ti incantare, o-bav- 
itt decxvivat, expaiverv, ba-s-n-t fabula, bé-lu% 

white. 

Olr. bé-n albus (Z? . 776). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 357 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 253, 258, Benf. ii. 101 ff., Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 123, 
Corssen i”. 140. — The far branching root has by means of different 
root-determinatives developed five secondary roots : bha-n, bha-s (bhas, 
bhash), bha-v, bha-k and bha-t. — Without doubt ¢a-v7 too belongs to 
the primary form bha ; it is related to the rt. da as cuo-vm is to cpa, 
ypo-vn to ypa (Lob. ‘Rhem.’ 269). In Hesychius’s gloss d-de-o-s' 
apavos, which M. Schmidt wants to change without any reason, the 
same root seems to occur in a similar use in a shorter noun-form. 
We may add Armen. ban ‘word:’ cp. Hiibschmann ‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 19. 
— To the secondary rt. bha-n belongs qaiv-w, which, as é-ddv-n-v, 
map-pav-dav, tau-paive show, is not contracted from daeive (Dietrich 
‘Ztschr,’ x. 441). Cp. above p. 64. — Whether the rt. bha-s, which is 
plentifully represented in Skt., can be assumed for Gk. at all is 
doubtful. In any case ¢d-os has nothing to do with the Skt. bhds-as 
‘brightness,’ since the Aeolic gatos, Pamphylian pdfos (Ahr. ‘Aeol.’ 
36, ‘Dor.’ 44), does not allow of this. With more probability 
Autenrieth on Nigelsb. ‘Notes to the Iliad’ p. 316 refers to a 
rt. g@as the intensive mai-pacow, in the oo of which however there 
may perhaps be a « concealed (Fritzsche ‘Stud.’ vi. 308).— The rt. 
bha-v is to be seen most clearly in the above-mentioned ¢ai-os, in 
m-pav-oxw and in dav-ci-p-B-po-ro-s (Pindar, ep. Clemm ‘ Compos.’ 40). 
That the diminutive fav-zlla belongs to it is rendered probable, in 
spite of Corssen’s doubts (i%. 141), by the fact that the word, as 
distinguished from cinzs, means the ‘ still glowing ashes,’ and also that 
gaid-s ‘ gray’ arrived at its ordinary meaning from that of ‘ glittering.’ 
The derivation from the rt. bhag adopted by Corssen fails because there 2 
is absolutely no trace of the meaning ‘ to warm’ in this root (cp. on No. 
164). Itis possible that faveo also and fau-s-t-us (for fav-os-tu-s) arose 
from an early popular application of the word to the region of mind ; 
this finds an analogy in the poetical use of das lwmen in the meaning 
of salus ‘deliverance. To af belongs too the -pawr, -fowv, and -pav 
so frequent in proper names, for Priscian (i. p. 17 H.) read AnpoddFov 
‘ in tripode vetustissimo,’ and probably ¢d-e, pa-é-O, pa-e-ci-p-B-po-ro- s, 
the ae of which can hardly have been together from the first. — The 
Lat. words fac-ie-s, fac-é-tu-s point to a root expanded by &. Whether 
fax does is doubtful (Fick 1°. 685). Cp. above p. 61. — A number 
of words with a A: dad-npd-s ‘ shining,’ Pad-npi-dwvt-a (kvpata N 799, 
waves ‘with white heads’), gad-apa ‘ ornament of a helmet,’ dad-w0-s 
‘white,’ @ad-axpo-s ‘ bald-headed,’ look as if they were formed from 
a root expanded by A, to which Lith. bdl-ta-s ‘white,’ also belongs 
(cp. ora-A from ora). Still the A might also belong to the suffix, as 
in the Skt. bhdla-m ‘brow,’ ‘ brightness,’ in which case a stem-noun 
dado-s, adduced by grammarians, would be their basis. — As to the 


358 BOOK Il. 


meanings the Skt. words prove that here give light and speak were 
originally denoted by one and the same word, and that the differentia- 
tion of the two developed only gradually and without being connected 
with definite secondary sounds. Poets: at all times use daivew, and 
similar verbs, of speech e.g. Soph. ‘ Antig.’ 621 kdewdy eros répavrat. 
— Olt. do-ad-bat ‘demonstrat,’ do-ad-badar ‘ demonstratur,’ taid-bsiw 
‘demonstratio’ (Z?.. 881), from which Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 209 
deduces an Ir. rt..bat = Lat. fat, comparing taid-bsiw with Lat. con- 
fessio, are omitted from the text, because perhaps the original initial 
letter was a v. For in Z*. 881 to the same root is assigned the 
future co n-dér-bais (compounded with do-ar), ‘ut demonstres’ (cp. 
the fut. don-aibset, for -aid-bset, gl. to ‘ostentare’ Ml. 204), but 
this cannot be separated from the pret. pass. domm-dr-fas ‘it appeared 
to me. We must take into account also the cognate Ir. rt. fen, ben 
in as-fenimm ‘ testificor ’ (Z?. 429), tais-fenim, -benim ‘ demonstro.’ 


408. Root gar gay-eiy eat, day-d-s glutton, day-dv-es 
teeth (Hesych.). —Skt. bhag (bhdga-mi) divide, as- 
sign, get one’s share, enjoy, bhaksh enjoy, devour. 
—Zd. baz dispense, bagh-a-s piece, bakhsh obtain. 


Bopp. ‘ GL.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 443, ii1. 503,. Benf. 1. 222, Fick i°. 686. — 
The Gk. gay agrees more closely in its meaning with the expanded 
rt. bhaksh. But even the rt. bhag approximates in meaning to dayeiv 
(cp. p. 114); the Ved. pitu-bhag means ‘ enjoying food’ (ep. Pott ii’. 
597) and bhak-td-m ‘food’ Conversely in dapopdyor (Bacrhijes 
Hes. ‘Opp.’ 39, etc.) and in the Locrian maparogayeiora (‘ Stud.’ ii. 
449) ‘ become confiscated,’ a trace of the wider meaning perhaps sur- 
vives. For dnyés cp. No. 160. Ido not see how to reconcile daxd-s 
‘lentil’ with our root ; fd-ba (for fag-va) = Ch.S]. bo-bi% (Schleicher 
‘Ksl.’ 123) comes nearer to it. — For fame-s see under No. 192. — 
With qay-cv-es cp. No. 289. — Here belongs probably Bayaios: Zevs 
Ppvyws Hesych., which has long been compared with the OPers. baga, 
Ch.Sl. bogw ‘ God’ = Skt. bhdgas ‘ bread lord,’ ‘lord’ 


298 408 b. Root gap dp-o-s plough, dapd-w I plough, 
d-pap-o-s unploughed, Bot-dapo-s ploughed 
by oxen, @dp-o-o-s a piece, dép-ayé ravine, 
ddp-vy€é gullet. 

Zd. bar cut, pierce. 

Lat. for-d-re, for-d-men. 

AS. bor-ian, OHG. por-an, por-dn bore. 
Ir. berna cleft. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 359 


Pictet 11. 96.— Lobeck ‘Rhem.’ 303. The verb ¢adpew is found 
only inthe grammarians. It is worth noticing ‘E. M.’ 175, 37 gapos 
97 apoots mapa to papa 6 eote cxivat, Kai yap diapapovs act xiTavas, rovs 
eis Svo pépn Kexopicpevovs, Kal papaos Td ardcxicpa Tis écOyros, ib. 787, 
41 hapay& 7 Stecyecpévn yh. pap-o-os is formed hke éy-os ‘limb’ (Hom.), 
dip-o-ea etpaves (Hesych.) from the rt. dpd (No, 253). — Only those 
words are collected here which can be immediately classed under the 
notion ‘bore,’ ‘tear. Fick i°. 694 includes also many other words, 
among them ferire (cp. No. 316), foru-m ‘ division (?),’ Skt. bhur-ig 
‘scissors,’ and the Lat. for-f-ex: the latter would have to be explained 
by the supposition of a broken reduplication (cp. wop-1-n No. 356). 
The Lat. fur-ca is minutely discussed by Bugge ‘ Stud.’ iv. 344 against 
Corssen (i. 149). There are besides the following Gk. words with a« 
suffix from our root: dap-x-ls' puris, pop-K-es* yapaxes Hesych.—Cp. 
Spiegel ‘Ztschr.’ v. 231.—Olr. berrazm ‘tondeo, the rr of which 
cannot have come, as Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 212 maintains, from ry, 
is connected rather with Ir. berr, Cymr. byrr ‘short’ (Z?. 88). 
409. pé-B-o-nau flee, am scared, #68-o-s flight, fear, do- 
Bé-w scare, poBé-o-uas fear, PoP-epé-s frightful. 
Skt. rt. bht (bhdja-té, b¢-bhé-ti) to be afraid, bhaja- 
ja-mi terreo, bhi-s, bhaj-d-m fright, danger, bii- 
md-s frightful. — Zd. bi to be frightened. 
OHG. bi-bé-n, bi-bi-né-n tremere [Mod. G. beben]. 
ChSl. boj-a-ti se, Lith. bi-aw, bij-dti to be afraid, 
baj-u-s fear. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 588, Benf. 11. 105, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 
121.— The reduplication which is so plain in Skt, and German 
renders it probable that dé¢-@-o-wat with irregular dissimilation of 
the aspirate, was formed at a time when as yet the hardening of 
bh to } had not taken place, cp. dép-B-o (No. 411), Fritzsche ‘ Stud.’ 
vi. 337, Fick i°. 690. Otherwise Benf. ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 50 where he — 
wrongly I think — assigns a specifically Skt. causative form as the 
basis of the word. Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. .231 questions the com- 
parison of the Teutonic words with biz, and: prefers to. place them 
under the Skt. giv-ri-s ‘shaking’ and the Lat. vib-rd-re. But I do 
not see how the initial 6 is to be explained on this hypothesis. — 
Miillenhoff conjectures that the Lat. fe-b-ri-s, compared by Pott ii’. 
556 and Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 204 with ferveo, and explained differently 
again by Pictet ‘Ztschr.’ v. 347 and Benf. vii. 56, belongs here, and 
accordingly meant properly ‘trembling. Cp. aeq-er under No. 140, 
Fick i°. 690, Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii, 208. In that case the agreement 
in the relation of the aspirates would be remarkable. In any 


360 BOOK II. 


case the Teutonic has in this root the distinction of being the only 
language to preserve the physical meaning. 


299 410. Root gev, pa é-re-v-o-y killed, pa-ré-s killed, gov- 
o-s, pov-7 murder, pov-ev-s murderer, advdp-et-pov- 
Tn-s manslayer, Poiv-io-s bloody. 
‘Goth. ban-ja wound, OHG. ban-o murderer. 
Olr. beba mortuus est, ba-th death, bathach mori- 
bundus, benim strike, etir-di-bnim kill, co itir- 
di-bither ut interimatur, etar-di-be interitus. 


Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 398, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 167.— Attempts made at 
comparisons in other directions by Pott 1’. 255 and Benf. 11. 277 are 
foiled by the Gk. deivw = fendo and the Skt. ghan = han. — In 
goino-s the epenthesis of the « is noticeable, as the same vowel is 
retained in the following syllable. The transition of the meaning to 
that of a colour is too simple to be an objection to this derivation.— 
Instances of the numerous Irish derivatives from this root in Z’. 429, 
448, 810, 882, ‘ Corm. Transl.’ p. 18 — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 336 adds 
inter alia O.Cymr. du-ben-eticion, gloss on ‘exsectis.’ Whether also Ir. 
bas ‘death’ belongs here is doubtful: the Ir. root bal (at-bail ‘ perit’) 
compared by Ebel, certainly belongs to the OSax. quelan (‘ Beitr.’ 
vill. 445). 

411. Root pep hép-w (hopé-w) bear, Pép-ua burden, pro- 
duce, fruit, ép-e-rpo-v litter, bier, pap-é-rpa 
quiver, dép one who carries off, a thief, dop-o-s 
tax, pop-d-s bearing, dop-é a carrying, produce, 
movement, dop-ud-s basket, mat, pdp-ro-s burden, 
gdep-vy dowry. 

Skt. rt. bhar (bhdr-d-mi, bhdr-mi, bt-bhar-m) bear, 
carry off, support, hold, bring, bhdr-a-s, bhar-d-s 
burden, bhar-aua-m, bhdr-ma(n) maintenance, 
bhr-tt-s maintenance, pay. — Zd. bar bear, bring. 

Lat. fer fer-o, -fer (st. -fero), fer-cu-lu-m, fur, fer-aa, 
Sor-du-s, far, far-ina, fer-ti-li-s, for-(t)-s, for-tu-na, 
Sor-tu-itu-s. 

Goth. rt. bar batr-a dépw, rikrw, ga-baur épos, 
batir-et, batr-thei (OHG. bur-dt) popriov, burden, 
ga-batr-th-s birth, bar-n bairn, child, bér-usjés 
parents, barm-s lap, bariz-ein-s barley (adj.), AS. 
bere barley, OHG. bara bier. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 361 


ChSl. rt. ber st-ber-a (inf. bra-ti) colligo, bré-me 
gopros, bra-k% connubium, Bohem. ber-u inf. 
brd-ti take, Lith. bér-na-s child, servant. 

Olr. berim fero, birt mac she bare a son, do-biur do, 
as-biur effero, dico (Z*. 428), ta-bairt datio {Ces 
250), com-batré partus. 


_ Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 466, Benf. ii. 107, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 123, 
Wahl ‘De Graecae radicis dep usu’ L. 1874, Heinr. Schmidt 
‘Syonym.’ i. 430.— The primary meaning of ‘bearing,’ which 
includes the two main conceptions of ‘supporting’ or ‘holding’ 
on the one hand, and that of ‘moving away’ on the other, has in 
Greek developed itself mainly in three directions: (1) to bear a 300 
burden, (2) to bear with reference to the effect, the produce, 
then bring, bring forth (cp. No. 376), (3) to bear considered as 
a movement, whence ¢épe like dye in the sense of ‘ well!,’ ‘come!,’ 
dopa ‘movement,’ Lat. ferri. — The most characteristic developement 
of the first meaning is dyew kat pépew = agere et ferre, and also Pap, 
anopop ‘thief’ (‘ Stud.’ iii. 199). — We may certainly place under the 
second head the Lat. far, st. farr, for far-s, where the s may be quite 
well regarded, like the s in ja-s, fa-s as the same suffix which has 
preserved its vowel in the Goth. *bar-is (stem-form of the adj. bariz- 
ein-s), but lost it in a similar way in the Old Norse barr ; the earlier 
and more general meaning is to be seen even in farina, and this 
makes the difference in the kind of corn denoted by far and the 
Goth. *baris less surprising. Otherwise Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 205, i” 
159, with whom Ascoli ‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 343 agrees. ¢dp-pa-ko-v too 
is most naturally regarded as qap-na, expanded by the suffix 
-ko, and used in the originally general meaning of ‘herb’ (some- 
what differently Pictet ‘Ztschr.’ v. 49). With the Teutonic and 
Slavonic words for ‘child’ (what is born) we may compare gdp-k-es* 
veooooi Hesych. If we consider that the word bring also belongs to 
the same root we shall see a way to fors, Osc. ady. fort-is (= Lat. 
forte), forttina. On the other hand ¢apos suggests the German T'racht 
(something carried), in the sense of clothes. Déderlein ‘ Synon. und 
Kt.’ vi. 285 (cp. Vossius ‘ Et. Lat.’ s. v.) is no doubt right in comparing 
pro-bru-m along with op-pro-br-iu-m with mpopéepew. The use of the 
word in a bad sense is as early as Homer (( 74). Here, as in can- 
dela-bru-m, we find the 6 which is to be expected in the middle of 
old words, instead of f. Otherwise Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 352, Joh. Schmidt 
‘ Ztschr.’ xxii, 325. — Under the third meaning falls the intransitive 
use of Siapépew = differre, properly ‘in diversas partes ferri’ (cp. 
p. 106). Perhaps we may add even ¢ép-repo-s, pép-tato-s, pép-raro-s 


301, 


362 BOOK II. 


(cp. mpopepys), so that it would have originally denoted the higher 
degree of mobility or impetus. Since the Skt. root especially in the 
reduplicated form 6%-bhar-mi also means sutrire, sustentare, pép-B-w 
gop-B-n of like meaning arose, through the meaning ‘ support,’ probably 
by broken reduplication (Brugman ‘ Stud.’ vii. 328) from dep, and dop- 
B-n may be compared directly with her-b-a, the old form of which, fi-b-ra 
mentioned by Servius ad ‘ Georg.’ i. 120 points to ferba, while for-bea 
(Paul. 84) has the look of a foreign word. Otherwise Fick i°. 697. — 
The Olr. com-bairt (‘ Goid’.’ p. 55) seems to be distinct from coimpert 
‘conceptus’ (‘sperma’ ‘Ir. Gl.’ 847), which perhaps contains com- 
aith-. Besides tabairt (Z?. 250) there is also tabart (Z?. 484), ed-bart 


‘oblatio’ (Z?. 800). From berim there is the inf. breith, fer brithe 


lésboir ‘vir ferendi luminis’ (Z*. 250). 


412 a. Root pda éx-ddraiv-@ spout forth.— Root pdad 
é-prad-o-v tore with a noise, dra-c-6-s brag- 
ging, ma-prAd¢-w foam, bluster. 

Lat. fld-re, fld-tu-s, fla-men, fla-bru-m. — flé-s, 
flor-eo, Flor-a, Ose. Fluusat (dat. sing.). 

OHG. bld-an blow, MHG. blds flatus, Goth. uf- 
blés-an guvo.dv, OHG. bldsa vesica, blé-tara 
bubble, bladder, in MHG. blister as well. — 
OHG. bluo-jan florere [ Eng. blow], Goth. blé-ma, 
OHG. bluot (fem.) bloom (Germ. Blithe). Goth. 
bléth, OHG. bluot (neut.) blood (Germ. Blut). — 
OHG. b/é6z superbus. — OlIr. bléth bloom, Cymr. 
blodeu, Corn. blodon flos (Z?. 37, 1076). 


b. Root pace PdAé-@ swell, overflow, Préwy (cp. Pred-s) _ 
epithet of Bacchus, dAé-dwy (st. dre-dov) chat- 
terer, dAjv-ado-s idle talk. 

ChSl. ble-d-a pAvapa, ble-d-%t amdrn, AAjpos (2). 

c. Root pat PAi-ds (st. PrAcav7) son of Dionysus, 
Pr100-s. — PALO PALOH overflow, €-pAid-ev" diEp- 
peev (Hesych.), pAcd-dv-er duappet(Hesych.), prr- 
féALa @ Varicose vein. 

d. Root pdu ¢dAv-cai chatter (Aesch. ‘Prom.’ 504), dro- 
g@Av-ev spit out, dva-Prv-ew spout up, Pdv-euw 
swell, overflow, PAv-o-s, dAv-apo-s idle talk, 
prAv-a£ chatterer. — dvd éx-drvvd-dv-ew break 
(of ulcers, etc.), pAvd-ay (PAv¢-eLv, aor. PAVEat) 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. | 363 


overflow. — pdur oivé-gdAvé drunk with wine, 
prvk-ti-s, PAvK-Taiva blister. 

Lat. flu-o, flii-men, flu-v-tu-s, fluc-tu-s, fluxu-s. — 
fle-o, flé-tu-s, flé-mina varicose vein. 

AS. bull bladder, ON. bulla ebullire, Goth. uf- 
baul-jan puff up, inflate. 


e. Stem Prot droi-w swell, dror-6-s, HAS-o-¢ bark, rind. 
— prod dia-é-prold-ev' SiakéxuTas (Hesych.), 
me-prod-evat to bubble. — ¢gdroic-Bo-s noise, 
foam (Hesych.), MHG. bléd-er-n roar, blubbern. 


The relationship of all these multiform stems and words, exclusively 
European, with the common primary notion of bubbling over, is as 
clear as it is difficult to account for their separation. The ChSl. 
blad-t-ti ‘ errare,’ discussed by Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 122, probably belongs 
also to the stems expanded by 5.— Most of the words here given are 
to be found in Pott i. 239 (cp. W. i. 1205, ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 322 ff. and 
‘EK. FY 11°, 965), where also the relationship of the Skt. phal (phal- 
a-mt) ‘burst, ‘bear fruit’ and phull (phiillami) ‘to blossom,’ 
phulla-s ‘blooming,’ phdl-a-m ‘fruit’ is conjectured. Then again 
phal-a-m, phala-s ‘ ploughshare’ may be related (cp. d). I now 
regard fle-o with Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 191 as belonging to (d), that is 
to say, as sprung from flev-o, so that flé-tu-s stands on the same 
footing as fé-cundu-s from the rt. fu. As regards flu-o, we see from 
the old Lat. con-flii-gés as from fluai, etc. that the root is flug, which 
Joh. Schmidt ‘Voe.’ ii. 4 finds also in Skt. bhurag, ‘to spout,’ ‘ bubble’ 
‘Pet. Dict.’ Cp. ii. 225. The meanings of flu-o and fdt-w (dva-pdv-evv 
‘spout up’), which were connected by Déderlein ‘Synon. u. Etym.’ vi. 
131, approach each other very nearly, especially if we remember 
Jluctuare, fluitare, properly, ‘to heave up and down. ‘The ideas 
‘spout’ and ‘sprout’ are interchanged throughout. I now put /lé-s 
under (a), especially on account of the vowels of the Teutonic words 
which point to @ That dv«ri-s ‘blister’ really belongs here, in spite of 
Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 414, is shown by the OHG. bldsa mentioned in 
class (a): Grassmann xii. 90 compares also the AS. bull ‘bladder.’ 302 
But we must separate the Latin bulla on account of the 6. But per- 
haps Pott ii. 778 is right in holding $vy-eOdo-v ‘ ulcer’ to have lost a 
A and to belong to ¢Avy. — Benfey is doubtless right in connecting (i. 
602) prdyp (st. Pre-8), following Niz ‘kl. Worterb.’ p. 272 and Lobeck 
‘Paralip.’ 123, where attention is directed to PdreBdgew Bpvew (Photius). 
The by-form 7 d¢B-a is remarkable. No doubt @ stands for F and 
the word is directly connected with (d) (st. prev from dv). — The 


364 BOOK II. 


meaning ‘chatter’ is remarkable, developed as it is in the most 
different forms of this root, and among widely different nations. 


413. Root ppak dpdao-a (é€-ppdéy-n-v) shut in, make fast, 
dpay-pa, ppay-po-s fence, a shutting up, dpv- 
g@ak-To-s partition. 

Lat. farc-io, farci-men, far-tili-s, far-tor. — fre- 
gu-en(t)s. 

Goth. batrg-a rnp, dvrdoow, batrga-hei mount- 
ainous district, OHG. bérc mountain (Germ. Berg), 
Goth. baurg-s town, borough (Germ. Burg). 

Lith. bruk-w press hard, constrain. 


The rt. dpax and its later softening to ¢pay I have attempted to 
establish ‘Ind. lect. Kil. aest.’ 1857 p.v. Cp. ‘Ztschr.’ xi. 399, 
where especially the meaning of pdcco is discussed as compared with 
that of farcio, and above p.115. xpadin dddro.wr wepaypéevn (Oppian 
‘Cyneget.’ 4, 7) is cor dolis refertum. As farcire means ‘ to stuff full,’ 
so ppaocoew means sometimes ‘to stop up. frequ-en(t)-s senatus is a 
‘crammed’ meeting (dpayeis). Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ vill. 215 compares 
with it the Skt. barga-s ‘in large numbers’ (acc. to the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ 
‘vehement,’ ‘strong’). Lobeck ‘Rhem.’ 103 and Déoderlein ‘Synon. u. 
Etym.’ vi. 122 had already connected ppacow (=dpak-jo) ppay-vu-pt 
(‘ Gk. Verb.’ p. 112) with fare-t-o. Cp. Benf. i. 111. — The primary 
meaning is retained in Lithuanian (cp. ppdgavres ddpu Sovpi N 130), 
and from this has been developed in Gk. that of ‘ shutting up fast,’ 
in Lat. that of ‘stuffing up fast.’ The meaning ‘hide,’ ‘protect’ (Germ. 
bergen), which we find already in the Goth. bairg-an, is not at all 
foreign to the Gk. ppdcceww, dpaxrés can often be exactly translated by 
‘protected, and a borough (Germ. Burg) is a hpaxrov méduopa (Aesch. 
‘Sept.’ 63); the Germ. Berg ‘mountain’ is related to Burg as mon-(t)-s 
is to muin-io. Cp. Zimmer ‘ Nominalsuflix a’ p. 36. — Spi-gaxro-s= 
dpv-ppaxro-s Lob. ‘ Paralip.’ 15 not., Pott i’. 91.—The form dapgéa 
vouched for as Attic by grammarians may now be seen in an inscrip- 
tion published in the ‘Monumenti dell’ Inst. archeol.’ 1865 fase. iv. 
p. 325.— Objections are made by Pott W. ui. 204, 520, further 
combinations by Fick ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 61. — Ir. brug, gen. brogo, 
Cymr. bro ‘terra,’ ‘ regio’ Z?. 90, OGall. Allo-broges, -brogae (‘. . . quo- 
niam brogae Galli agrum dicunt, alla autem aliud,’ Schol. on Juvenal 
vil. 214, Z*. 207; cp. Gliick ‘ Kelt. Nam.’ p. 26), has in Irish the 
older form mrug beside it, and is placed by Stokes along with Goth. 
marka. OlIr. borec ‘urbs,’ borggde ‘burgensis’ (Z’. 61) is borrowed from 
the Teutonic (Hbel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 167). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 365 


414. dpoa-rnp (st. pparep), Ppd-rwp (st. dparop) member 
of a pparp-ia, ppatp-a (Hom. $p%-rpn), pparp- 
i¢-w, pparp-tdé¢-w belong to a phratria, ppdrp-coe 
Ocot patron deities of the phratriae.— Skt. nom. 
bhrata (st. bhra-tar), Zd. brdtar frater. — Lat. 303 
Umbr. frater, Lat. fra-ternu-s, fratr-ia brother's 
wife. — Goth. bréthar, pl. brothra-ha-ns brethren, 
OHG. bruodar brother.—ChSIl. bra-tré, bra-tu, 
OPr. brati-s, Lith. broter-éli-s (dim.), brd-li-s 
brother, brotu-szi-s cousin. — Olr. brdthir frater. 


Bopp ‘ GI1.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 478, Schleicher ‘Ksl.’ 123.—The deriva- 
tion usually given is that from the rt. dep in the sense of swstentare, 
nutrire, whence the Skt. bhar-tr ‘maritus. —In gpnrnp~ adekpos Hesych. 
the original use has been preserved among the Greeks as well, as Leger- 
lotz ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 436 has pointed out. To this we may add the 
strange word pd‘ ddedpol imd trav "HAeiov Hesych. (cod. Meloy), a form 
which cannot have been correctly transmitted to us. With these 
exceptions the word has in Gk. a purely political meaning. — In the 
Goth. bréthra-ha-ns we see a suffix like that in the Umbr. fratre-k-s= 
fratricu-s, fraternus. — In modern Irish names of relations follow in 
the plural the stems like Olr. cathir ‘town,’ gen. cathrach (Z?. 259), 
hence here brdthair ‘brother,’ nom. pl. brdithre and brdithreacha 
(O’Donovan ‘Gramm.’ p. 99). 


415. dpé-ap (st. dpeapr), Hom. pl. dpei-adra, Att. dpé- 
ara. — Goth. brunna(n) well, OHG. brunno. — 
Olr. topur fons. 


Benf. 11. 109, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 398, who derives the Goth. brunna 
from brinnan ‘urere,’ ‘fervere.’— Perhaps this derivation will lead us 
to the root, which can be nothing but ¢pv. This explains ¢dpé-ap, 
with an increase of the vowel, for dpéF-ap (cp. Pott W. i. 1204, but 
according to Joh. Schmidt ‘Voc.’ ii. 270 for gepf-ap). If we take 
‘boil,’ ‘burn’ to be the primary meaning we get an excellent explana- 
tion both for rop-pip-w ‘heave’ of the sea (pup: ppu=-amup : Skt. pru-sh 
No. 385), and for rép-up-o-s ‘purple.’ More extensive combinations 
taking in the Skt. bhur ‘start,’ ‘be unquiet,’ are made by Joh. Schmidt 
ut supra, cp. ‘Pet. Dict.’ s. v. bhur. It appears that language 
regarded the heaving of water, the flickering of fire, and the glistening 
of red colour as the same thing. Cp. Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 417, Sonne 
xiii, 431, Bollensen ‘Or. u. Occ.’ 11. 475. Is it not possible that 
ferv-eo too, which may be for frev-eo, is related? The meaning agrees, 
though it is true that other combinations suggest themselves as well 


366 BOOK II. 


(Gk. dep, Skt. ghar No. 651, Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 220 ff.).— Leo Meyer 
is no doubt wrong in his conjecture (‘ Ztschr.’ v. 381) that the rt. 
plu (No. 369) and even the Lat. fon(t)-s are related. Pictet v. 347 is 
more likely to be right in connecting the Lat. fe-bru-u-s along with 
febru-are, Juno Febru-li-s as reduplicated forms.— Olr. topur for do- 
od-bur (Z’. 885). Of cognate origin are also Olr. tipra, gen. tiprat 
‘spring,’ do-eprannat ‘affluant’ (M1. 39 d), both words compounded at 
the beginning with do-azth-. The -brat of tiprat might go back to 
*bhurant: the -brannat of the verbal form reminds us of the Goth. 
brunna (cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 337). Ir. berbaim ‘I cook,’ ‘boil’ 
belongs to Lat. ferveo. From the root-form bhru comes Olt. bruth 
‘fervor, ‘furor.’ 
416. ppv-vn, ppb-vo-s toad, Ppvvn, Ppivo-s, Ppivixo-s, 
Ppovviov, Ppvydévda-s. — Lat. fur-vu-s. — Skt. 
ba-bhri-s reddish brown. —OHG. bri-n fulvus, 


- 


fuscus. 
Grimm ‘ Worterb.’ 1i. 324, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 200. — The root is 
304 the dpv assumed for No. 415; if besides fur-vu-s the Lat. fu-scu-s is 
also to be placed here, it must have lost an r before the s, like su-su-m 
=sur-sum. pivos then meant the ‘brown one, hence the many 
proper names. rwbeta, the name of a kind of frog, from ruber, is 
similar. Pictet i. 412 adds another animal’s name, the Skt. ba-bhri-s 
‘rat,’ ‘ichneumon,’ which accordingly was originally ‘the brown one,’ 
and is perhaps right in thinking that this name was applied to the 
beaver, Lat. fi-ber= Lith. bébru-s, Bohem. bobr, OHG. pipar, an ex- 
cellent hypothesis phonetically at any rate (otherwise J. Grimm 
‘Wtb.’).—We are expressly told that the celebrated Spi got her 
name 6 ®xpérnta. Pott ‘ Doppelung’ 88 agrees and translates the 
name by Fulvia.— Corn. befer ‘ beaver’ Z?. 37. 

417. Root ov ¢v-w (é-du-v) beget, pv-o-war grow, become, 
g@u-y growth, ¢v-o1-s nature, di-ua a growth, 
du-rd-s grown, gu-rev-w plant, beget, pd-do-v, 
du-Ay race, stem, i-rv, pi-rv-ua sprout, shoot, 
di-T0-w beget. 

Skt. rt. bhi (bhdv-d-mi, 3 sing. aor. d-bhii-t) be- 
come, be, flourish, bhav-d-s origin, bhdv-d-s rise, 
condition, bhu-tt-s existence, welfare, bhii-mi-s 
earth. — Zd. bv to be, to become. 

Lat. fu, fu-a-m, fu-i, fu-tuiru-s, fo-re, fu-tu-o. — 
feé-tu-s, fé-cundu-s, fé-n-us, fe-nu-m.— Ose. fufans 
erant. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 367 


OS. biu-m, AS. beo-m, OHG. bi-m Iam, Goth. bau-an 
dwell, bau-ain-s dwelling. 

ChSl. by-t?, Lith. b%-ti to be, ba-ta-s house, floor. 

Olr. béu fio, sum, bdi fuit, inf. buith esse (Z?. 491). 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. i. 1143, Benf. ii. 105, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 398, 
Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 123. — The. in ¢i-rv arose by dissimilation from 1, 
because Greek rarely tolerates v in two consecutive syllables. The 
Aeolic present ¢v-i-w (Ahr.‘Aeol.’ 98) is remarkable; Schleicher (Beitr. 
ili, 248) is no doubt right in identifying with it the Umbr. fuio, subj. 
fui-a. The vowel of fétu-s is explained by Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 191 to come 
from a present form fev-o (cp. fle-o No. 412 d). ~In meaning fé-n-us 
(cp. pé-n-us, fac-i-n-us) corresponds to réxos (cp. on Nos. 307 and 309). 
Perhaps we have in tmrép-gev (Aesch.) the Gk. stem corresponding to 
the Lat. fev-o; it is certainly rightly explained by imeppuas, — gordo 
might go back to pof-t-ra-o, which might occur in Latin as * fuito re- 
garded asa frequentative and applied to presence at a place. futavit 
(fuit) is actually to be found among the glosses of Placidus, (p. 44 
Deuerlein), futare in Paul ‘Ep.’ p. 89. Tobler ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 248 
compares the Span. fu ‘he went.’ But it is difficult to explain the « 
in the face of vaerdw, pederdw, etc. —It seems safe to connect da-s 
‘man’ (st. por) as ‘ the begetter,’ and to refer it to pofar=Skt. bhdvat, 
which besides its participial use in the sense of ‘ being’ *~ sed as a 
polite form of address. Cp. Fick 1°. 700. Phonetically similar is 
géa (for hof-a)’ éEavOnpara Hes.— On the use of fuam, fore by the 
side of stm, esse cp. ‘Studien’ v. 437 ‘ De aoristi latini reliquiis.’ The 
meaning ‘be’ evidently attaches to this root everywhere only as an 305 
outgrowth of the earlier inchoative meaning ‘grow, ‘become.’ This is 
however no warrant for introducing into the Homeric formularies éy 8 
dpa of pv yxeupi, dda& ev xetheor Hrvtes (cp. Hdt. vi. 91 xeipes €urrecbukviat) 
the idea ‘grow firm.’ Here diva differs from yeréoOa only in degree 
of intensity (cp. éeyévero ev xeupi, év éavrp), and means accordingly to 
get ‘fast in’ something, to be firmly bound to it. I. Bekker, it is 
true (‘ Hom. Bl.’ i. 183), takes yepi as an instrumental dative, so that 
the meaning would then be ‘he bound himself to him by the hand.’ 
It seems to me more natural with Schnorr ‘ Verborum collocatio 
Homerica’ (Berlin 1864) p. 5, to connect the dative with ey, if only 
on account of the parallel uses of yiyyeoOa.— Osc. Putret dat. probably 
Genetrict. — Oly. biw through *bi-iw from *bhu-ia: 66¢ presumes a 
prehistoric (be)bove: ep. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 242: butth st. bhu-ti. 


418. @vAXo-v leaf. — Lat. foliu-m. 
Pott i?. 239, ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 323, Benf. i1.575.—- We are at once re- 


368 BOOK Il. 


minded of No. 412 dor of No.417. Both supply a possible origin for 
the words, and hence we cannot decide, though we can see that these 
two words are identical, and that pvAdo-yv=gvAto-v. If they belong to 
412 we must divide the word @vA-wo-v fol-cu-m, if to 417, pu-dio-v 
fo-liu-m. Cp. Fick 1°. 700. 


N 


A Greek y corresponds to an Indo-Germanic n, retained 
also in all the other languages. 


419, Root av dv-e-po-s wind, d@v-rav' dveuor Hesych. — 
Skt. rt. an (dn-i-mi) breathe, an-a-s breath, an- 
ild-s wind, dn-tka-s face. Zd. ain-ika face. — 
Lat. an-i-mu-s, an-i-ma.— Goth. uz-an-a exspiro, 
an-st-s favour, OHG. un-st procella, an-do wrath, 
ON. 6nd anima, vita. — ChSl. a-ch-a-ti odorari, 
v-on-ja odor. — Cymr. anadyl, Olr. andl breath, 
Olr. anim (dat. anmin), Corn. enef soul (Z?. 820, 
1078). 


Bopp ‘G1., Pott W. ii. 2, 1, Benf.i.118, Grimm ‘Wtb.’ i. 192, Mikl. 
‘Lex.,’ Stokes ‘Ir. Gloss.’ p. 149.— The immaterial use of the word 
reminds us of Oupds (No. 320), mvedpa (No. 370), and the late Latin 
use of spiritus; the Goth. anst-s of the Lat. adspirare [and aura 
Hor. ‘ Od.’ iii. 2, 20, etc. |_— Ant. Goebel has especially worked out this 
root (‘Homerica, oder Unters. tib. d. W.’ANV’ Miinst. 1861), but 
here much is over boldly referred to this root (cp. p. 108 above). It 
seems to me however a happy thought, which Benfey has since carried 
out further (‘Or. u. Occ.’ i. 193), that mpoo-nyns, da-nyys, and tx-nvn 
are to be placed here. Only we must not therefore ascribe to the 
rt. dv the meaning ‘see,’ but must start with Benfey from a noun- 

306 stem nvo=Skt. dnd-s ‘mouth’ or ‘nose’ (cp. @rana-m ‘mouth,’ ‘face’), 
thus mpoo-nvns means ‘ with face turned towards,’ az-nvns ‘with face 
turned away. For mpyvys=Lat. prdnus see on No. 380. To tn-nvn, 
which Fick ‘ Bezzenb., Beitr.’ i. 64 places with vap ‘shear,’ Apollon. 
‘Lex.,’ Hesych. and ‘EH. M.’ assign the meaning 6 tnd ry piva rémos. It 
may also very well denote the down under the breath (apérov imnvnrn). 
— Olr. osnad, Cymr. ucheneit ‘sigh’ (Zimmer ‘Ztschr.’ xxiv. 216) do 
not belong here: cp. Cymr. uch ‘sigh,’ och ‘to sigh.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 369 


420. adva-, dv-, a negative prefix, dv-ev (Dor. dv-is) 
without. — Skt. an-, a-. Zd. ana-, an-, a-. — 
Lat. in-, 7-, Ose. Umbr. an-, a-. — Germ. un-, Goth. 
im-uh, OHG. dnu, dne (Germ. ohne) without. — 


Oly. an-, an-fiss inscitia, an-cretem infidelitas 
(Z?. 860). 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott 7. 65. For dus Ahr. ‘Dor.’ 384, Grimm ‘Gr.’ iii. 
261.— This negative particle is probably identical with the prono- 
minal stem an (No. 421).  du-dacin P 695, 6 704, a certain instance 
of the unusual preservation of the nasal before a consonant. The 
epic by-form dva- preserved in dvd-edvos (Hom.), dvd-eArros (Hesiod), 
avd-yvooros (Callim.) which Buttmann ‘A. Gr.’ ii?. 466 took aright, 
and recognized in its relation to wy- in ‘ Lexil.’ i%. 274, while 
Lobeck ‘El.’ i. 194 endeavoured with G. Hermann to set it aside, now 
receives a strong support in the Zend form ana- (e. g. ana-zatha 
‘unborn,’ = *dvd-yero-s) Justi p. 18. Joh. Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 272, 
differing from Clemm ‘Stud.’ viii. 14, considers the second a as a 
later developement from the nasal. The forms dvev, dvs are not yet 
cleared up: an attempt is made by Benfey ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 226. — Since 
aphaeresis is a common phenomenon in Skt., perhaps the Skt. prefix 
mis-, coinciding in meaning with the Germ. aus, un-, is to be iden- 
tified with dus. Cp. Zimmer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 523 ff. 


"421. dvé up, to, &v-w above. —Zd. ana (w. ace.) up. — 
Lat. an-heélo draw up breath, Ose. Umbr. an-. — 
Goth. ana up, to, against. — ChSl. na super, 
OPruss. na, no up. 


Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. anu, which in its meaning post, secundum is cer- 
tainly related (‘ Vgl. Gram.’ 11. 187, Pott 1°. 306). — dva is evidently a 
case-form of the demonstrative stem, which is preserved as ana in 
Skt., as ana-s ‘that’ in Lithuanian, as onz% with the same meaning in 
ChSl., and which is related to No. 420. Cp. Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ iv, 219 
and No. 425. — As an occurs in Umbrian (Aufr. and Kirchh. i. 158) 
as a prefix, we may explain also the Lat. an-hélare by an, for the 
amb- of an-quirere ‘round about,’ or, as Pott W.i. 83 takes it, to 
draw breath ‘ambobus lateribus’ is too far-fetched. Other traces of 
this Lat. an are conjectured by Bergk ‘Philol.’ xxi. 592, Liibbert 
‘Conj. Perf.” (Breslau 1867) p. 76 in a-stataries from a formula of 
incantation, a-stasint ‘statuerunt’(?) (Paul. ‘Ep.’ p. 26). Corssen 11”, 
564. 


422. avip (st. dvep) man, avdp-eio-s manly, avdp-efa 
Bb 


307 


370 BOOK II. 


Hom. 7vop-én manliness, ay-yvwp manly, courage- 
ous, &vOp-w7ro-s human being. 

Skt. nar, néra-s man, human being, nar-ja-s manly, 
nr-mnd-m virtus, n’-tama-s (superl.) avdpedra- 
Tos. — ZAd. nar, nara man, nairya manly. 

Sabin. ner-o(n) fortis, ner-io (st. nert-en) fortitudo. 

Olv. nert n. vis, valor, so-nirt firmus, fortis (Z?. 863), 
nertit confirmant (Z?. 436). 


Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott i’. 106, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 285. — The stem nar in 
four families of speech denotes ‘man’ with a tinge of honour which 
comes out in many ways, as in Lat. wr beside vir-td-s and Skt. vird-s 
‘hero. On this is based’ the’ interpretation of the Umbr. nerf (acc. 
plur.) by principes, proposed by Aufrecht and Kirchhoff, and accepted 
by Corssen i?. 471 and Biicheler (‘Populi Iguvini lustratio’ p. 6), 
closely connected with the Sabine words given in the text, for 
which Suetonius ‘ Tiber.’ 1. and Gellius xii. 22 are our authorities. 
We may probably add the Oscan gen. plur. nerwm. Bréal ‘ Mém.’ 111. 
269 has not disproved this explanation. — Starting from the stem as 
it is found in Sanskrit, Zend, Italian, and Keltic, we shall regard the a 
as prothetic, as in d-peiBo, d-yivw. The notion that davyp had a F is to 
be altogether rejected. The Homeric dialect disproves this notion by 
hundreds of lines, and does not confirm it by a single one. Nor is 
there the slightest trace of F in any other dialect. It is uncritical, 
in face of this, to appeal to Dionys. Halic. ‘ Antiqu.’ i. 20 as evidence, 
for he lived under the delusion that F was prefixed at pleasure (as ra 
moda) by the Aeolians. His fFavyp therefore carries no weight, and 
all etymologies, which presume fF, are baseless: e. g. that of Legerlotz 
‘Ztschr.’ x. 374, strangely enough repeated by Bréal, according to 
which the y of the rt. yey was changed into this apocryphal F. But 
all other attempts at etymology, e.g. the derivation from rt. an (No. 
419), are extremely doubtful. We may notice the Pamphylian gloss 
ddpi* dvdpi (Hes.). —av6p-w7o-s seems to me to be taken most naturally 
as ‘man’s face’ (Pott ii”. 924 after Hartung ‘ Part.’ i. 52) with 6 for 
the more usual subsidiary consonant 6 (cp. may-o-s ayn, yoru mpdxvu, 
mpd dpovoos). This is supported also by dpay* avOpwmos (Hesych.) 
which I regard as the syncopated form of vep-wy, where 6 before p 
would be the natural substitute for », as 8 before p that of p (Bpo-re-s 
No. 468). Otherwise Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 240, v. 365. — dporjra 
=dvdporjra Clemm ‘ Rh. Mus.’ xxxil. 463 establishes for 1 857 and 
two other passages in Homer. 


423. yévu-s chin, jaw, edge, yév-e.o-y chin, beard, yvd- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 371 


6o-s, yvab-pd-s jaw, bit, tooth. —Skt. hanu-s (m.) 
jaw. — Lat. gen-a.— Goth. kinnu-s (f.) chin.— 
Ol. giun, gin, OCymr. genou, Corn. genau os (Z?. 
994, 1066). 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott i1, 142, Benf. ii. 118.— The agreement of five 
families of speech in the nasal, of four in the initial guttural with a 
kindred meaning, justifies this comparison, in spite of the Skt. A which 
points to gh, as in aham=eyay, ‘ego,’ Goth. 7k. — yvd-6o-s shows an 
expansion to be compared with Xi-6o-s, Kédev-O0-s, Wapa-Oo-s (by the 
side of yaupo-s), which reminds us of the d of the probably related 
Lith. £én-da-s ‘jaw,’ ‘jawbone.’ If we may assume a rt. yay, yer, the 308 
words collected under No. 125, which are of kindred meaning might 
be developed from it by the help of a derivative 6=bh. — In the Lat. 
dentes genu-ini ‘cheek teeth, a stem genu appears, alike also in its 
suffix (Fick i°. 561). — Here belongs also Genava ‘ Geneva,’ as it were 
‘Ostia:’ Gliick ‘Kelt. Nam.’ p. 104. 


423 b. eivdrep-es. — Lat. janitr-i-c-€s women married to 
brothers. —ChSL jetry (f.) civyupdos, uxor fratris 
mariti, Lith. inté brother’s wife. 


Bopp ‘Gl.’ s.v. jatr, Pott 1’. 208, 14. 114, Benf. ii. 202, Corssen 
‘Beitr.’ 265, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ i. 34. — A very old term of relation- 
ship, which has preserved its form with no essential change, and its 
meaning completely in three families of speech; for civyypdor is in the 
grammarians the explanation both of the Greek and of the Latin word 
(cp. also Nauck. ‘ Aristoph. Byz.’ p. 136). The primitive form must 
be taken to be jantar. The Greek ei may probably be explained from 
ee for je ; the a is related to the Lat, ¢ just as the a of Ovy-a-rep to the 
Skt. duh-i-tar (No. 318). In Lat. and ChSl. expanding suffixes have 
been added. — The Skt. jatar, according to ‘ Pet. Dict., ‘the wife of a 
husband’s brother,’ somewhat further removed in form, has perhaps 
grown out of jantar. But the Skt. jamdtar, a by-form of gamatar 
‘step-son’ (cp. p. 546), we put out of the question. 


A424, Root évek nvéy-On-v, Ev-ivox-a, VEYK-0-V, VEyK-a 
carry, dovp-nvex-és as far as the spear carries, 
di-nvex-yns (Att. di-avexys) going throughout, 
holding together, zrod-nvex-7s reaching to the 
feet, nvex-js (late) extended, xevt-nvex-js driven 
with the goad. 

Skt. nag (ndc-d-mi) reach, attain, ag (ag-nd-mi) reach, 
aor. dnat (for * dn-ank-t), vj-dnac-t-s penetrating. 
Bb 2 


372 BOOK II. 


Lat. nanc-i-sc-o-r, nac-tu-s (nanc-tu-s), Osc. nesimu-m 
proximum. 
Goth. ga-nah it suffices, satisfies, néhy near. 
ChSl. nes-a@ inf. nes-t¢ carry, Lith. nesz-% carry, 
nasz-ta burden. 
Oly. rt. ane oc by, ocus vicinus, com-ocus affinis ; 
do-ic, tic he came, air-ecar invenitur, con-icim I 
can; perf. ro anac, rdnac I attained, do anac, tdnac 
Icame. Rt. nanc perf. cotm- nactar potuerunt. 
Pott W. ii. 2, 428, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 125, A. Kuhn ‘ Beitr.’ in. 123, 
Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 184.— The present form cuveveixera: (Hes. ‘ Scut.’ 
440) compared with the Homer. éveixeuev, dvevnveryxrar (Att. inscr.) is 
disputed, I think, without reason. The diphthong originating in a 
syllable with a nasal is discussed by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ i. 122 f. The 
glosses of Hesych., quoted by Lobeck ‘ El.’ 1. 57, év-€-erxav" ijveyxay, ev- 
e-eik-o" évéykw are curious. The drag eipnpyévov too éx-nyk-ev-id-es ‘ boards 
on the hull of a ship’ (e 253), some grammarians traced back to é7- 
nveyk-id-es, Which would suit the meaning. Lob. ‘ El.’ i. 508, — The 
relation of the words given above to each other has been discussed 
with very different results by Ernst Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 309, by Win- 
809 disch xxi. 409 ff. and by Joh. Schmidt xxiii, 269 ff. The closely ap- 
proximating meanings ‘ suffice,’ ‘ attain,’ ‘reach,’ ‘ obtain,’ are expressed 
by not less than seven different stems, evidently akin to each other, 
viz. (1) ak (Skt. ae), (2) ank (Skt. dea-s ‘share’), (3) anak (xar-nvox-a 
Hesych., -nv-ex-ns), (4) anak (eveyxeiv, dvayx-n (?)), (5) nak (Skt. nag, Lat. 
necesse (1), Goth. ga-nah, ChSI. nes), (6) nank (Lat. nanc-tu-s), (7) nak 
(Goth. néhv, Osc. nésimo). How this multiplicity arose out of one 
primitive form need not be discussed here. For éeveyxeiv I assume re- 
duplication (‘Greek Verb’ p. 291).— On the Irish words ep. ‘Ztschr.’ 
xxi. 412 ff., xxiii, 212, 224 : anac=Skt. dngca. To Gk. dvdyxn, Lat. 
mecesse, belongs Olvr. écen ‘ necessitas.’ 

425. évi (adv. é), ev (Arcad. and Cypr. iv), eds (és) in, 
év-70-s, €v-do-v within, éo-w within, év-epo. in- 
feri, €vep-Oe, tm-évep-Oe apud inferos, évép-repo-s 
deeper (vép0e, véprepot), év-repo-y inward parts. 

Skt. an-tdr inside, within, an-tara in the middle, 
dn-tama-s the nearest, intimately friendly, dn- 
tara-s within, inward, an-trd-m intestine. 

Lat. en-do, in-du, in, in-ter, in-tra, in-trd, in-ter-ior, 
in-tumu-s, in-tus, intes-tinu-s ; Umbr. en-, an-der, 
Osc. an-ter inter. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. o1O 


Goth. in, inna within, innuma inmost, inna-thrd 
écwbev. — un-dar under, OHG. innddiri intestine. 

Lith. 7 in (w. ace.), ChSl. v-a, v-% in, je-tro jecur. 

Olr. i(n) in, inathar viscera ; eter, etir inter; OCymr. 
a(n), in, permed-interedou ilia; Corn. enederen 
extum (Z?. 1066). 


Cp. ava No. 421, Aufrecht and Kirchh. i. 148, Mikl. ‘ Lex.’ — 
evi : dvd = mepi : mapa (No. 346); evi seems to be a locative form ; éis, 
for which the grammarians give us an Argive-Cretic év-s (Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 
104), is formed like ¢& from ék (cp. Lat. ct-s, ul-s). In several dialects 
ev like the Lat. in took the place of eis: iv is discussed by Mor. Schmidt 
‘Ztschr.’ ix. 369, and in my ‘ Contributions to Greek Dialectology’ 
Gott. Anz. 1862, ‘Nachtr.’ p. 10. gw Hom. cicw for év-cw is formed 
from év in the same way as mpd-cw from ps. év-epoe are properly ‘ the 
inner ones:’ hence the name is an evidence of an underworld con- 
ceived as existing inside the earth. Leo Meyer ‘Bemerkungen z. 
altest. Gesch. d. Gr. Myth.’ p. 55, compares Skt. ndra-ka-s ‘ under- 
world,’ German Nord and Nerthus as the Earth-mother. The same idea 
occurs in tnter-eo, which remarkably agrees both with the German use 
of untergehen (‘to go under,’ i.e. ‘to perish’) and with the Skt. antar- 
i-ta-s ‘perished, ‘ruined.’ Perhaps the Umbr. nertrw mani, i.e. 
‘sinistra manu’ (Aufr., u. K. 1. 219) belongs here. — Thus we get 
the right view of the relation of the Skt. prefix n2- ‘down’ to the Gk. 
evi: ni- is probably for anz- (cp. No. 420), but its meaning has been 
transferred to that which has become fixed in év-epo. and in OHG. 
ni-dar ‘nether ;’ this latter word is compared also by Bopp ‘ Gl’ and 
‘Vergl. Gr. ii. 495. In the word ni-njd-s ‘inward,’ ‘ secret,’ derived 
from ni- the primitive meaning appears. — The pronominal stem ana 
which apparently occurs in these prepositions and adverbs, is also 
preserved in év-0a, ev-Oev, ev-ratvOa, év-redOev with the vowel «, and also 
in the following No. — Pott, who treats of this preposition 1. 314, is 
inclined to regard 7 as the stem. But in Greek 2 never passes into «€ 310 
before consonants. Besides the full a-sound is shown not merely in 
the Umbr. Osc. anter ‘inter,’ which no one will separate from zn, 
but perhaps also in individual words of the Sabellian dialect acutely 
explained by Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 141 (asigna=insignia)—In Ch8&l., 
as often, the spiants v and j have taken the place of the spiritus lenis. 
— The nasal of the Ir. in is retained before a vowel and a medial : 
before a pronoun a form is used corresponding to the Lat. indu-, 
indium ‘in me’ (Z?. 625). On the OCymr. permed-interedou 
(permed= Lat. permedius) ep. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ iv. 400. Here belongs 
also the OGall. gloss Jnter-ambes ‘ inter rivos :’ ibid. vi. 227. 


374 BOOK II. 


426. éy-.o-1 some, éviayod, éviayy in some places, évi-ore 
sometimes. — Skt. an-jd-s (Zd. anya) alius, an- 
jd-tra elsewhere, anjd-tha otherwise. — Goth. 
an-thar aos. 


Bopp ‘GI. ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ i. 382, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 125. — Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ 
v. 70 has endeavoured to explain éwo in accordance with an old view 
by @ of: in this case the derived adverbs would be purely after- 
formations, and this is supported by the fact that éo. with its deri- 
vatives first occurs commonly in Herodotus, and is unknown to the 
Homeric poems. Still there are not wanting indications that the stem 
évo even in Greek had quite the meaning of the Asiatic anja. To 
these belongs Hesiod’s és 1° atvpiov és 7” evynpw ("Epy. 410), where we can 
clearly recognize the stem of the feminine eva=Skt. anja assimilated 
after the Aeolic fashion. The meaning of ‘the day after to-morrow ’ 
is easily arrived at from that of ‘the other.’ Akin are also évap és 
rpitny, émévap es Terdptny Adxaves (Hes.), genitive forms with a Laconian 
p for s and » for w (cp. &evos beside Aeol. Eévvos), for which we find also 
vas, vas (Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 385), and in the same way the accusative éyny in 
Aristoph. ‘ Ach.’ 171 mapeivar eis yyy, i.e. eis rpirny (Schol.). Pott’s 
question (W. i. 841) ‘does this word then ever express difference ?’ 
would thus be answered in the affirmative.—@,)o-s is treated separately 
under No. 524. 


427. évvéa nine, évva-to-s (Ion. eivaro-s), éva-ro-s the 
ninth, évvd-xis, €vd-kis (Ion. efvyéxis) nine times, 
évva-kKOclol, €va-kootot nine hundred, éveyy-Kovra 
(Hom. evyjxovra) ninety. — Skt. Zd. ndvan nine, 
Skt. nava-md-s the ninth, navatt ninety. — Lat. 
novem, nNOnu-s, Nov-iens, NONA-ginta, non-genti. — 
Goth. niun nine, niun-da the ninth.— OPruss. 
nevin-ts nonus, ChSl. deve-it novem, devetyj 
nonus, Lith. devyn-t novem, devin-ta-s nonus. 


— Cymr. nau novem, Olt. ndi(n) novem, nédmad 
nonus. 


Bopp ‘Vergl. Gr’ i 76, Pott i. 107; ti 132; Benfiisateess 
where there are all manner of conjectures as to the origin of the word, 
which reminds us of véo-s (No. 433), and perhaps points to an old 
method of reckoning by fours. — The é is prothetic, afterwards came 
the doubling of the v, which does not hold its ground in all the derived 
forms. For both these procedures Bopp quotes the analogy of the 
Armenian. According to Christ indeed (‘Lautl.’ 34) and Schwabe 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 375 


‘Ind. schol. Dorpat’ 1866 p. 16 éevvéa is for evfea, and Schwabe believes 
that in the new Aeolic poem of Theocritus v. 27 he may write accord- 
ing to the traces of the MS. etvea, which he explains as like yodva for 
yovFa, But how improbable is a metathesis, which would only produce 
a harder combination of sounds ! — évevn-xovra= nondginta is explained 
by Benfey from the ordinal, after the analogy of éBdopun-kovra, so that 
the stem évevo is like the Lat. ndno, probably with m for m (cp. Skt. 
nava-md-s).—For the Slavo-Lithuanian forms Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 116.— 
Olr. néi(n) for a prehistoric noven. 


428. évo-s, €vn old. —Skt. séna-s old. Zd. han-a (m. f.) 
old man or woman. Skt. sana-kd-s of old, old, 
san-as of old. — Lat. sen-ec-s, sen-iu-m, sen-esc-o, 
sen-ditu-s, sen-ili-s, sen-ec-tti(t)-s, Sen-eca, sen-ec- 
to(n). — Goth. sin-eig-s mpeaBirns, sin-ista oldest, 
OFrank. sini-skalku-s the oldest house-servant. 
— Lith. sén-a-s old, sén-t-s old man, sen-ysté 
age, sen-e¢ of old, long ago. — Olr. sen old, 
compar. siniu, senchas vetus lex, historia (Z*. 787), 
OCymr. hen senex, hencassou monimenta. 


Pott 11. 148, i°. 796, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 129, 463, iv. 45, Stokes 
‘ Beitr.’ vill. 337. — évo-s as adjective in the formulas én kal véa, vat 
apxat, évos xaprds in the sense of the French ancien (Suidas éynv ryy 
madadv) Aristoph. ‘Ach.’ 610 én or & according to the Scholia ék 
moAdov, hence like mada. — For the derivative ec in Lat. senex, to be 
compared with the « of yuva-u (No. 128) ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 215.— Kuhn 
connects with this also the words denoting ‘ always,’ which are similar 
in sound, Skt. sénd ‘always,’ Lat. sem-per, Goth. sin-teind ‘always,’ 
sin-tein-s ‘daily:’ but the meaning is tolerably far removed, and 
rather reminds us of dua (Nos. 449, 599). Certainly the forms referring 
to the future, quoted under No. 426, évvn etc. are unconnected.—The 
gloss of Hesychius yerrdy" dpyaiov, which does not follow the alphabetic 
sequence, and is justly regarded by M. Schmidt as suspicious, cannot 
at all make us doubt this combination, especially as it occurs in the 
midst of other strange and evidently corrupt glosses. 


429. Root wev, wav wév-w remain, pé-pov-a (pl. wé-wa-pev) 
strive, wév-os spirit, courage, Mév-rwp, Mév-r1-s, 
"Aya-péuvov, paiv-o-war rave, pav-ia madness, 
pav-7l-s inspired one, seer, pyv-t-s wrath. — St. 
uve pé-pyyn-war remember, prvd-o-uar keep in 
mind, woo, pi-uyv7-ocK-@ remind, uv7j-poy mindful, 


311 


312 


376 


BOOK II. 


pvh-vn, pynpo-ctvn Memory. —St. a-6 €-wad-o-v 
learnt, pavé-dv-m learn. — St. unvu Hnvv-@ in- 
form. 

Skt. rt man (man-v-é, man-j-é, part. ma-ta-s) think, 
believe, hold good, keep in mind, long for, mdn-as 
thought, spirit, will, ma-ti-s devotion, thought, 
view, man-ju-s humour, ill-humour. — St. mn@ 
(mdnd-mi) in composition, mention. —Zd. man - 
think, upa-man wtro-pévey, fra-man wait for, 
mananh thought, spirit.— St. ma-d, ma-dh to 
treat (of a physician), madh-a wisdom, know- 
ledge of medicine, vohu-mad trohupabys. 

Lat. man-e-o, me-min-i, Miner-va, men-tio, men-(ti)-s, 
menti-o-1, mend-dx, mon-e-o, Moné-ta, mon-s-tru-m, 
re-min-t-sc-0-", com-min-t-sc-o-r, commen-tu-m, 
commen-ta-riu-s. — med-eo-r, re-med-iu-m, med- 
icu-s, med-t-tart. 

Goth. ga-mun-an think, keep in mind, mun-s vénpa, 
ga-min-thi pveta, OHG. minnia, minna amor: 
OHG. man-é-n, man-d-n monere, meina opinion, 
ON. muni animus. — Goth. mund-6-n consider, 
mundrei aim, OHG. munt-ar expeditus, vigil. 

Lith. min-iw keep in mind, at-men-u, at-min-ti-s 
thought, man-d-ru-s vigilant. — ChSl. mtn-é-ti 
vopifev, po-me-na-tt pynpoveverv, pa-me-lt py yun, 
ma-d-1t% ppovipos. 

OIr. menme (gen. menman) mens, do-moiniur puto 
(perf. do-ménar), do-aith-minedar commonet, taid- 
met memoria, der-met oblivio, atr-mitiu (gen. air- 
miten) honor. 


Bopp ‘GI. Pott W. i. 2, 94, 118, Benf. 1. 34 ff., Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 


ll. 


163.— The meanings of this widely ramifying root, carefully 


discussed by Babad ‘De Graeca radice man’ (Leipzig Doctor. diss. 
1874), have taken three main directions: (1) thought accompanied 
by endeavour, striving; hence pé-pa, pa-i-o-wa: (perhaps for pao-jo- 
pat) are also related; (2) ‘excited thought’ opposed to natural 
behaviour, ‘the remaining sunk in thought,’ hence (a) (Pictet 
‘ Ztschr,’ v. 325) ‘to be inspired,’ ‘raving,’ ‘wrathful;’ and (b) re- 
garded purely negatively —‘to remain.’ For the latter Graeco-Latin 
developement Pott quotes analogies from Persian and Armenian : 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. OV7d 


cp. above, p. 103, Fick i°. 713; (3) ‘keep in mind,’ ‘remember ’— 
causatively taken, ‘to remind, Mév-rap=monitor, and (fainter) ‘ in- 
form’ pnview. The more physical fundamental meaning of the root is 
perhaps that of ‘touching, ‘feeling,’ which may to a certain degree be 
recognized in its transition to a more metaphysical application in the 
Homeric use of émipaieoOar, émepdooato, paotyp. May not even pdoré 
(expansion from pac-r:) belong here? (E 748 pdorty Gods éemepaier ap’ 
immous), If we give ma as the primitive form, we obtain the link 
between ‘touching’ and ma ‘measure’ (ué-rpov), Movoa arising, as 
is proved by Dor. Maca, Aco]. Moica, from Movaa, i.e. Movria, may be 
fitly attached to this root, whether it be brought into a closer con- 
nexion with pavre-s (== parti-a) with Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 398, or—as I 
prefer—be taken directly as the ‘ thinking, devising one’ (Pott ‘Ztschr.’ 
vi. 109 ff., Welcker ‘ Gotterlehre’ i. 701, Leo Meyer ‘Bemerk.’ 42, 
Preller ‘ Mythol.’ i7. 380). Otherwise Bergk ‘ Philol.’ xi. 382, Sonne 
‘Ztschr.’ x. 128. — It may be doubted with regard to pi-ri-s ‘ insight,’ 
‘judgment,’ whether it belongs here or to the related rt. pa (No. 461): 
the former view is supported by the Skt. form abhi-mditt-s ‘ way-laying,’ 
‘plot, quoted by Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 301 (cp. moddvpnri-s). — For 
the stem-form pa-0 (uav-6) expanded by a 4, recognized also by Pott 
i”, 472, ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 2, vi. 108, cp. above p. 63. This is demonstrated 
by pev6-npn porris, pevO-npas pepipvas, quoted by Hesych. This ex- 
panded stem only received a full explanation by means of the Zend 
words quoted above, and touched upon before under No. 286: for 
these unite the two meanings which are separated in med-?-tari (cp. 
pabeivy) and med-é-77._ The change of meaning in Lith. man-d-ri-s = 
OHG. mun-tar is remarkable. But the ChSl. mg-d-ra% forms the link 
between this and the fundamental meaning (similarly rt. budh No. 
328). For mentiri and mendax cp. Pott i. 537, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 117, 
for Minerva (Menervai C. I. L. 191, 1462) Preller ‘Rom. Myth.’ 258. 
It is a derivative from menos=Gk. pevos. Hence promenervat ‘monet’ 
(Fest. p. 205).— The further ramification of the root in peve-aivw 
(from peves-), pevowd-w may with other points be passed over here, and 
also the words denoting ‘man’ (Skt. mdn-u-s ‘ human being,’ Lat. mas, 
etc.), which certainly come from this root, but have no representa- 
tives in Greek, unless indeed it is Mivw-s (Benfey ‘Hermes, Minos, 
Tartaros’).—OIr. menme m. (Z’, 254) is a stem like Skt. manman 
n.; -moiniur pres. dep. like Skt. manjé, -ménar perf. dep. like Skt. 
méené, -met for * manta: -mitiu (Z?. 800) like Lat. mentio. Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 337 adds Olr. en-main ‘ carus.’ 


430. vad-s ship, vat-rn-s shipman, vavrido-s sailor, vav- 
Tidd-o-pat sail, vad-do-v, vatd-cOdo-v passage- 


313 


378 BOOK II. 


money, vau-tTia, vav-cia sea-sickness, vavTid-o, 
vavo.d-w become sea-sick. 
Skt. ndu-s ship, boat, ndu-ka@ skiff, OPers. ndvi ship. 
Lat. ndvi-s, nau-ta, ndvita, ndv-igare, Ndv-ig-tu-m. 
OHG. nacho, AS. naca, Bavar. naue ship, ON. nau-st 
statio navalis, Néa-tun Shipton, dwelling-place of 
Njordhr. 
Olr. nau (gen. nde) navis (Z?. 33). 

Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ 1. 258, Pott W. i. 138, Pictet 11. 180. — Lat. 
nausea is certainly a borrowed word, and perhaps also nauta. 
[Nettleship ‘Essays’ p. 29.] The root is either snw (No. 443) or 
sna, which however is only quoted in the meaning of ‘lavare’ (cp. rt. 
plu No. 369). In the latter case vat-s would be formed like ypai-s 
(No. 130). — For the guttural of the Teutonic words see p. 596. 

431. Root veu véu-@ portion out, pasture, rule, véu-o-pat 
get apportioned, feed, possess, vwpud-w distribute 
to, use, vou-7, véu-n-o.-s distribution, veu-é-ra@p, 
vou-ev-s distributor, véu-e-ol-s displeasure, wrath 
at an excess, veuerod-w (veyerdw), vemeci-¢-o- 
pac blame, am angry with, voy-o-s custom, law, 
voui¢-@ am accustomed to, vouio-va Coin. — veu-os 
pasture, Neuéa, vop-d-s pasture, dwelling. 

Lat. Num-a, Num-i-tor, num-e-ru-s, Numer-iu-s, 
nem-us. 

Goth. nim-a capio, AapBdve, OHG. ndm-a rapina, 
praeda, [Eng. numb and Shakspere’s Corporal 
Nym.| 

Lith. ndém-a-s house (?), ntim-a-s gain, Lett. nom-r tax. 

Olr. ndédmae (nom. plur. ndémait) hostis. 

The attempts to connect these European words, which are certainly 
akin, with the Skt. nam (ndm-am-?) ‘to bend,’ ‘to incline,’ or even 
with Skt. yam ‘hold,’ ‘lift’ (Pet. Dict.) as in Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. gam, 
Benf. 11. 134, meet with great difficulties, the former from the mean- 
ing, the latter from the form of the words. Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 347 ff. 
makes a new attempt to unite véeuw and ndém-dmi on the ground of 

314 the fuller account that has recently been given of the use of the Skt. 
word. He endeavours to find the intermediate notion in kaénxew ‘ to 
come down to anything,’ and attaches weight to wpa-nam with acc. 
‘to fall to one’s lot:’ while Pictet 11. 17 following up a remark of 
Kuhn’s (‘Ind. Stud.’ i, 338) seeks to reconcile them by the idea 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS, 379 


‘baisser la téte pour paitre.’ The Zd. nim-ata ‘ grass’ might be con- 
sidered to support the latter explanation, while in all other cases in 
Zd. as in Skt. the verb and the substantive nemaih=ndmas denote 
‘bowing,’ ‘honouring,’ (also it is true ‘aes alienum’), The Greek 
use cannot be satisfactorily explained in either the one or the other 
way. Cp. also Pictet ii, 691 and Pott W. 1. 2, 193.—J. Grimm 
‘Gesch.’ 29 quotes some remarkable analogies for the connexion of 
the ideas ‘take’ and ‘pasture.’ —If we start from ‘allot’ as the 
primary meaning (cp. Heinr. Schmidt ‘Synon.’ i. 333 f.), the special 
applications are thus developed: (1) ‘count up,’ Herod. dvavéyerOar, 
numerus (for num-e-su-s, hence Ose. Viwmsieis) ; (2) ‘to get allotted 
to one’s self,’ hence ‘take’ vépeoPa:, which also (as well as véuew) means 
‘to dwell,’ and therefore induces us to mention here also the Lith. 
nama-s, quoted under No. 265 with a note of interrogation ; hence too 
in another way the words relating to pasturing, and again in a differ- 
ent way drovéuecOa ‘to get gain by anything,’ Lith. nzima-s ; (3) ‘to 
portion out,’ ‘suum cuique tribuere,’ whence vduo-s ‘ order,’ ‘ custom,’ 
‘ordinance,’ Vumitor=Nepéerwp. Corssen’s attempt (i2, 439) to refer 
vono-s to rt. yow (No. 135) is quite unsuccessful : vduo-s never means 
‘judgement’ in a judicial sense, but ‘custom,’ ‘ style,’ hence especially 
‘style of music.’ dyopa-vdpo1, yuvatko-vdpor etc., are ‘the orderers of the 
market,’ etc. Aristotle had a true sense of the derivation of vépos 
when he said ‘ Pol.’ i. p. 13264, 29: 6 vdpos rdgis tis éore Kal tiv 
evvouiay avaykaioy evra€iay civat. veyeois seems to have meant properly 
‘reckoning to any one,’ imputatio, as Fulda ‘ Untersuch.’ 1. 161 makes 
probable. Hence vepecigoua ‘I make a reckoning’ (in a bad sense), 
and the desiderative veueroda, 1. €. vepe-Ti-aw (Cp. Toude, vavridw), — vépos 
is strictly a Graeco-Italic word in form and meaning. How prominent 
the notion of grassy ground shaded with trees still is in nemus, is 
shown by passages like Horace ‘Carm.’ iu. 17, 9 ‘ cras foliis nemus 
multis tempestas sternet ;’ here Hoffmann-Peerlkamp takes objection 
on this very point, that the wood cannot be strewn. But the pasture 
can, — nummu-s, though the double m is the best established (Fleck- 
eisen ‘50 Artikel’ 21), is probably borrowed from the vépo-s pre- 
served to us in the ‘ Heracl. Tables’ (i. 122): there are also other 
proofs of its use in the sense ‘money’ or ‘coin’ (Meister ‘ Stud.’ iv. 
440). Somewhat otherwise Corssen i®. 438. — OIr. ndmae (Z?. 255), 
originally pres. part. has been compared by Stokes ‘ Corm. Transl.’ p. 
125 with Goth. niman. He also compares (‘ Beitr.’ viii. 337) with the 
Gk. ven, the Gallic gloss nanto ‘valle’ (cp. ibid. vi. 229), Cymr. nant 
‘valley.’ On the other hand Ol. nem ‘heaven,’ nemed ‘ sanctuary,’ 
OGall. nemeton belongs to Skt. nam: cp. Windisch ‘ Auslautges.’ 
p. 223. 


' 


380 BOOK IT. 


432. Root vec vé-o-wat go, come, vic-co-pat 20, vdg-T0-$ 
reaching, return. — Skt. rt. nas (nds-é) unite one- 
self to any one, sam-nas-€ come to any one.— 
OHG. nés-t, Goth. ga-nis-an o@(eobat, nas-yand-s 
caTHp, OHG. nara nourishment. 


Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 11.137, who explains the use of nas. — As this form 
explains vio-co-pat in particular = veo-to-yar (veiooopat is a reading 
315 now universally rejected) with « for e before the double consonant 
(cp. tc@:) and véc-ro-s, this comparison deserves to be preferred to 
attempts (Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. nz, Pott W. i. 576) of another kind, and 
also because of its simplicity to Benfey’s analysis (i. 301).— The 
proper name Néo-rwp, as far as form goes, might be well placed here, 
as something like ‘ Leader,’ ‘Leader home;’ cp. however under No. 
287 b.— It is natural to derive from this root also vaiw ‘dwell’ (vat- 
érn-s, vaetd-w), especially as forms like ¢-vac-ca, é-vac-On-v seem to 
contain a o belonging to the stem (Grassmann ‘Ztschr.’ xi. 33). As 
véoros means ‘return home,’ so vac-j-w might have meant something 
like ‘I turn in,’ ‘come home.’ Even vaéd-s, Aeol. vai-o-s ‘temple,’ 1.e. 
‘ house of the Gods,’ might stand for vac-fFo-s and (with Sonne ‘Ztschr.’ 
350, xiii. 408) be connected here (cp. evade for @rfade). — Cp. Fick 
i. 129, ‘Leipz. Stud.’ i. 141 f.). In the ‘ Rivista di Pililogia’ July 
1873, I have further discussed the remaikable developement of the 
meanings of this root. The fundamental conception is ‘come,’ ‘ ar- 
rive, taken causatively ‘to make to arrive,’ ‘come through,’ ‘ re-- 
cover.’ vdéa-ro-s has preserved the more general meaning in ¢ 344, 
Soph. ‘ Phil.’ 43, Eurip. ‘I. A.’ 966. There is much significance too 
in the meaning dvddocis ris yedoews (Hesych.), i.e. the ‘coming’ of 
the sap into the plants, vdorma ‘salutary herbs,’ where we approach 
the German Ge-nes-ung ‘recovery,’ véc-ro-s ‘ produce’ (proventus) in 
grinding, Evvooros ‘patron of millers.’ — n7z-du-s I omit, because of 
the equivalent Skt. nidd-s, nild-s, which is unexplained. 


433, véo-s (veFo-s) new, young, ved-s (ve.o-s) fallow field, 
ve-apo-s young, fresh, new, ve-av, vedv-ia-s, vé-a§ 
(contemptuous) youth, ve-ocad-s young (animal), 
ve-oTT-1é nest, ve-oy-ud-s new, ve-Bpo-s fawn, 
vé-aTo-s novissimus (fem. v7j-77 the lowest string), 
ve-woti lately [Germ. jiingst], vel-aipa (fem.) 
infima, vel-pd-v" Exxarov (Hes.). 

Skt. ndva-s, ndv-ja-s new, fresh, young. — Zd. nava 
new. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 381 


Lat. novu-s, Nov-iu-s, nov-tciu-s, nov-dli-s, nov-ellu-s 
nov-are, nov-er-ca, nu-nt-iu-s, de-nu-o, nu-per. — 
Ose. Nwv-la, Nu-ceria. 

Goth. niu-ji-s véos, niwt-tha Kkaivdrns. 

Lith. natw-je-s new, dim. nawjd-ka-s novice, Chil. 
nouv-% new. 

| Olr. nie, Cymr. newydd novus (Z?. 56, 837). 

Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott i’. 160, Benf. 11. 51, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 266, J. 
Grimm ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 433, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 125, Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ i. 160. — 
Perhaps from nu (No, 441).—The derivatives are developed from the 
stem by various formative suffixes in », p, x. veB-pd-s is for veF(0)-pd-s, 
a by-form of veFapé-s (p. 587): from ve-ax, ve-ox comes veorad-s = veok- 
to-s ; Lat. nov-er-ca is, as it were, veapixn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 216 ‘the new 
(wife)’ in a bad sense. Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 320 quotes an analogy 
from Modern Persian, where énder, literally ‘the other,’ denotes the 
stepfather and father-in-law. ndé-ntiu-s (Old Lat. nountius) Bergk. ex- 
plains (‘ Ztsch. f. d. Alterthsw.’ 1855 p. 300) as novi-vent-iu-s, Corssen 
i”, 51 as novent-tu-s from a postulated *novére.—véa-ros, vetaipa Ebel 
‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 206, and Fick ‘ Bezz. Beitr.’ i. 336 wish to separate from 
these words and to connect with the Skt. mz ‘downwards’ (Germ. 
mieder). But novissimus, which no one can separate from novus, 
means ‘the last’ in just this sense, e. g. novissima cauda (Ovid), as 
conversely yvéaroy means also the ‘latest’ in time. A rare super- 
lative ynoro-s=Skt. ndvishthas is quoted by Hesych., to which belong 
ynioras mUAaLs, Tais mopwras Kal Tedevtaias and the Theban gate Nira 
(Lobeck ‘ Proleg.’ 398, G. Hermann ad Eurip. Phoen. 1155) prob- 
ably for Nyrra with a Boeotian assimilation of or to rr.—On Cymr. 
newydd=Skt. ndyja-s cp. what is adduced by Rhys ‘ Rev. Celt.’ 
ii, 115. 

434. vedpo-v sinew, cord, vevp-é¢ bow-string, harp-string. 
— Lat. ner-vu-s, nerv-iae gutstrings, nerv-osu-s. — 
OHG. snar-a, snar-ahha, snuor laqueus, nar-wa 
scar [Germ. Narbe] and fibulatura, OSax. nar-u 
angustus, ON. njdrv-a artare.— Lith. ndér-a-s joint 
in the body, ner-w inf. nér-te to thread a needle, 
nar-inw make a noose. 


Benf. i. 292, Pott. 1. 230, W. i. 380 where we find figuring once 
more that unhappy nesvod, from Gell. xx. 1, which is found in no 
MS. (Scholl ‘ XII tabb.’ p. 122). Kuhn ‘ Ztschr,’ i. 515. — From the 
Lithuanian especially we may assume snar as the root, hence with a 
suffix va the Indo-Germ, snar-v-as, Lat. ner-vu-s, with metathesis 


316 


382 BOOK II. 


vedpo-v.—The Skt. snd-ju-s ‘tendon,’ ‘ bow-string,’ sndvan ‘ sinew,’ Zd. 
ena, gndvare- ‘sinew,’ ‘gut,’ are, as it appears, more remotely con- 
nected. — Cp. No. 436. 

435. veppo-s kidney, veppi-d.0-s, veppt-r-s of the kidneys. 
— OHG. niero kidney. — OIr. dru, Cymr. aren 

kidney. 
Benf. ii. 56. — The origin is altogether obscure: a 6 corresponding 
to the ¢ must have fallen out after the z in German. — Fick 1°. 648, 
who adds also nebrundines, Lat. nefrundines ‘ testiculi, or ‘renes’ 


quoted by Festus p. 162.— Olr. dru comes from a stem *abhran, 
Windisch ‘ Auslautsges.’ p. 268, cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii, 338. 


436. Root ve vé-w, vj-0-@ spin, v7-ua yard, thread, v7- 
oi-s Spinning, v7j-Tpo-y spinning wheel. 
Lat. ne-0, né-men, né-tu-s. 
OHG. nd-an, nd-dala, Goth. néthla padis, na-ti net. 
Olr. snd-the filum, sndthat needle, OCymr. notuid 
acus, Corn. snod vitta, noden filum. 


Pott W. i. 920, Benf. ii. 181, Bopp ‘ Gl,’ Stokes ‘Ir. Gl,’ 817, 
‘Corm. Trans.’ p. 115.— All four add Skt. nah = nectere, which 
makes some of its forms from nadh. This nadh may indeed be closely 
connected with v7é-o. But in ve we have a shorter stem-form, which 
deviates from the Skt. This is the opinion of Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ 
vill. 260, Pictet 1.158. The Ir. sndéthe would induce us to consider 
san, sna as the root, and to assume a connexion with No. 434; cp. 
Joh. Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 276, the form évyvy = nebat (Bergk ‘ Lyr.*’ 
p-. 1333), given in the ‘E. M.’ also points to the loss of a consonant 
before v. — Pictet 11. 512 is probably right in referring to this rt. 
vé-w ‘heap up,’ intens. vy-ve-w, with the derived vy-¢-o, for these verbs 
are used especially of the building up of the funeral pile (aupay vjcat), 
and the skilful arrangement of the logs across each other is not farther 


317 removed from the primary notion of binding than déu- is from d€- 


(No. 264). On the very ancient custom of constructing such funeral 
piles (Caesar ‘ B. Gall.’ vi. 16 ‘immani magnitudine, contexta vimi- 
nibus’) Pictet, following Jac. Grimm. ‘Ueber das Verbrennen der 
Leichen,’ quotes abundant authorities. [snéd = ‘ vitta’ is given as AS. 
in Wright’s ‘ Vocabularies’ i. 74 col. 2.] 


437. vn- negative prefix (vn-Kepdns, vn-(a)veu-in). — Skt. 
na (Ved. nd) not, nd (na-w) and not, néd (na-id) 
lest. Zd. na not. — Lat. ne- (ne-fas), -ne%, nt- 
(ni-mirum, ni-st), né, n-oenu-m, noenu, nNOn. — Goth. 


. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 383 


ni ov, wh, ni-h ovdé, niba ef wy, OHG. ne, nein. — 
ChSlL. ne ov, 7, ne-Ze 4 after comparatives, Lith. 
ne not, nez also not, as it were. — Olt. né non, né, 
ma-ni si non, ca-ni nonne, nd, ndéch non in de- 
pendent and relative sentences, naicc no (Z’. 
739 ff.). 


Bopp. ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 178, Pott. i'. 106, Benf. ii. 45. — According to 
Bopp «he pronominal stem a underlies these words, though it occurs 
elsewhere with a force by no means negative (cp. vai = Lat. nae 
[me, Ritschl ‘Proll. ad Trin.’ p. 97] ‘yes,’ »7 ‘indeed.’), The same 
nasal appears as a negative in dv- (No. 420). It seems to me unsafe 
to separate the Lat. né (nez, ni) from the interrogative ne and to 
connect it with wn. For n-oenu-m, i.e. ne-oenu-m (cp. No. 445), and 
its identity with nein. cp. Grimm ‘ Gr.’ i. 745, Lachm. ad Lucret. 
149, —It is worth while noticing the comparative usage~of this 
syllable in the Vedas, where na very often means ‘as’ (cp. Lith. ne7), 
a confirmation of the proverb ‘ omnis comparatio claudicat’ from the 
history of language. — Cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 309, Corssen 1%. 786. 

438. vncoa JIuck. — Lat. ana(t)-s. —OHG. anut [Germ. 
Ente, AS. ened, whence drake, cp. Germ. Enterich|. 
—Irth. dnti-s. 

Pott i. 199, Ba. i. 54, Fick i?, 488. — It is natural to suppose a 
connexion with vjy-o ‘swim’ (No. 443), but this would separate the 
Greek word from those in the kindred languages. Because of the 
é in three families of speech I prefer to derive vjcca from vyr-ta, so 
that mr corresponds to the Lat. stem anat, and ca is considered 
as an added feminine suffix. The primary form would thus be 
anat-ja. The loss of initial vowels, elsewhere unusual in Greek, 
is perhaps to be explained from a resemblance to myo found by 
‘popular etymology.’ The Skt. dté-s, the name for another water- 
_ fowl (Pictet i. 393) if identical, must have changed an into 4, cp. 

ja-tar (No. 423 b). 

439, Root vir, vip vi¢-o (fut. virw), vim-7-« moisten, wash, 
xXép-viB-a (acc.) water for washing the hands, 
vir-rpo-v water for washing. 

Skt. nig (né-négj-mi, by-form nifig) purify, wash 
away, ava-neég-ana-m water for washing. 
Olr. nig-im I wash. 

Bopp. ‘G1,’ Pott W. iii. 494, Savelsberg ‘Quaestiones Lexicales’ 

p. 57. Schleicher ‘Zur vergl. Sprachengeschichte’ p. 56. Cp. p. 


384 BOOK II. 


671. Benf. uu. 53, Max Miiller ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 365. The pretended 
Aeolic by-form vicow (again quoted by the latter) which could not be 
derived from rt. wy, has little support, according to Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 
41.— Cp. No. 440.—There is a trace of a o once present in azévi- 
¢ovro K 572, according to Rumpf ‘Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 1866 p. 75 (?).— 

818 Other Irish forms unmistakeably show the root-form nag: ro caom- 
nagar ‘he washed,’ fo-nenatg ‘he purified’ (inf. fu-nech), do-fo-nuch, 
-nug ‘abluo,’ ‘ lavo,’ ep. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 211. 


440. vip-a (ace.) snow, vid-a(d)-s snow-flake, m-erd-s 

snowstorm, veip-er (vid-er) it snows. 

Ld. cnizh to snow. 

Lat. ning-i-t, ningu-i-t: subst. ningu-t-s, nixv (st. niv 
for nigv). 

Goth. snatv-s, OHG. snéo snow, sniwit ningit. 

Lith. snig-ti, sning-ti to snow, snég-a-s, ChSl. snég-% 
snow, Lith. snaig-ala snow-flake. 

Oly. snigis dep. snigestar stillavit, snechta snow. 


Bopp ‘GIl., s. v. smu, Benf. ii. 54, Schleich. ‘ Ksl. 137, Kuhn 
‘Ztschr.’ 11. 263. — Bopp (cp. Pictet 1. 93) considers snu (vu, véw No. 
443) as the root, but there are still many objections to this. A con- 
nexion with No. 439 is suggested by Hes viBa yidva kai xpnynv, to 
which Photius and Suidas add év Opdky. We might start with snigh, 
whence Skt. snih ‘to be damp,’ snéh-a-s ‘oil, quoted already by 
Benfey. Cp. p. 482. Homer’s dydvudo-s also points to sn. But 
No. 439 presumes sng as the primary form. veider is the more 
approved spelling, confirmed by Herodian (ii. 554). Joh. Schmidt 
‘Voc.’ i. 134. — The n strengthens the stem in Latin as in Lithuanian. 
ningues Lucr. vi. 736, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 55.—The perf. ro senatch for 
sesnaig points to an Irish root-form snag. Op. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 215, 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vil. 11, 39. 


441, vv, vo-v-i, viv now.—Skt. nu, n& now, nu-ndm 
at present, certainly. Zd. nt just, exactly. — 
Lat. nu-dius, num, nun-c. — Goth. OHG. nu. — 
ChSl. nyné viv. — Olr. nu, no. 


Bopp ‘GI1.,’ Max Schmidt ‘ De pronom. Gr. et Lat.’ p. 97, Schleich. 
‘Ksl.’ 125. — Pott i? 106 compares with viv only the nwm used in 
ettam-num, but breaks up the interrogative into ne-wm and derives it 
from the negative and the indefinite occurring in wm-quam and 
identical with cum. As the interrogative -ne in Latin is post- 
positive, while the transition from an asseveration referring to the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 385 


present to an interrogation is easy, it looks to me more probable that 
the interrogative nwm is identical with the other, and differs from 
mune only as tum from tun-c. So Ebel ‘ Ztschr. vi. 207, Corssen 
‘Beitr’ 291, In nu-diu-s (cp. No. 269) we have the shortest form 
of the stem. — The connexion of this pronominal stem with No. 433 
is made probable especially by the Skt. nu-tana-s or ni-tna-s ‘new,’ 
‘of the day,’ ‘ young ’— cp. diu-tinu-s. — Iv. nu, no is an untranslate- 


able verbal particle, which is prefixed especially to the present 
(Z?, 411). 


442. Root vu ved-m nod, beckon, incline, ved-ua nod, ved- 
oi-s nodding, inclination, vev-o-Té¢-w, vu-cTd@ 
nod, sleep, viarado-s sleepy. 

Lat. nu-o, nui-men, nii-tu-s. 


Pott W. i. 669, Benf. ii. 182. Fick i°. 652, who quotes the rare 
Skt. nw (nave) ‘ go,’ caus. ‘move,’ ‘set aside,’ in composition ‘ turn.’ 
Cp. Corssen 1°. 83. Co-niv-é-re will have to be discussed at p. 597. 


443. Root vu, cvu. (1) vé-@ (aor. €-vevo-a) swim, ved-oi-s 319 
swimming, vev-o-r7p diver (Hesych.).— (2) vd-o 
(Homer. vaiw) flow, dé-va-o-s (tdata devdovTa) 
ever flowing. 

Skt. rt. snu (sndu-mi) cause to flow out, snav-a-s 
(subst.) a flowing, snu-ta-s (adj.) flowing, rt. sna 
(snd-mi) bathe, wash, float (trans.). 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott 11%. 285, W. 1. 372, Benf. 11. 53, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 
263, Fick 1°. 828 f. — vedo is quoted as the Aeol. present (Ahrens 36). 
— From the rt. snw are derived a great number of forms with the 
fundamental notion of ‘ flowing,’ ‘swimming ;’ so probably No. 430, 
perhaps No. 440, according to Corssen ‘ Nachtr.’ 293 Lat. nd-triav ‘she 
who makes to flow ’(?), with expansive dental suffix OHG. sni-z-an 
‘emungere, whence Germ. Schnauze ‘snout,’ with a guttural suffix the 
equivalent Lith. sni-k-i-s, with p Lith. seny-p-sz-t, Germ. schnau-b-en 
etc.— For the double initial consonant é<o-v ® 11, the reading of 
Aristarchus, is of importance (ga tév kata modes vnxovr’). — On the 
other hand No-ro-s, the ‘ moist south-west wind,’ may be explained better 
from the rt. sna as wé-ro-s from rt. pa (No. 371): further dezivatives 
are vd-r-to-s ‘moist,’ vo-r-ia ‘moisture,’ ‘rain,’ vo-r-epd-s ‘ wet,’ vo-r-iew 
‘to wet,’ vo-r-eiv ‘drop. To these belong Lat. nd-re, na-ta-re. With 
Goth. nat-jan ‘ wet,’ and all that belongs to this form, we cannot at 
most assume more than an affinity with the unexpanded root, for Goth. 
¢ points to an Indo-Germ. d. Zd. endd ‘wash’ does not suit either, for 

Cec 


386 BOOK II. 


its d seems to have arisen from dh. —I leave uncertain also va-pa ‘ fluid,’ 
‘spring,’ va-pd-s ‘flowing,’ whence Nnp-ev-s, and Ny-1d()-s, vdopous’ pevoers 
Hesych. vyj-y-w for ovn-x-o is related to vd-a, aS opy-x-@ to cpd-o, 
Wn-x-0 to Wd-w, yav-w. Perhaps vi-co-s (Na€o-s? cp. mdooado-s and mnxr6-s, 
Ton. Adés and Att. Angéis) is for vy-Kio-s (for c=oo Buttmann ‘ A. G.’ 1. 
85), but not,as Bopp conjectures, from Skt. nas@‘ nose; for although 
‘promontories’ are called ‘noses’ (Lange-nes, etc., Muddy), and although 
Cie. ‘de Legg.’ iii. § 6 says of an island ‘ hoc quasi rostro finditur Fi- 
brenus,’ yet we had rather consider islands as ‘the swimmers’ than as 
‘the noses’ of the sea. Otherwise Windisch ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 274. — On 
the other hand it cannot be decided whether vae (impf. vafov ‘ they ran 
over’ « 222) belongs to rt. sna or snu, especially as Hesych. gives the 
by-form vate" péer, BAver. ‘This is the reason why I put both roots 
together here. — The rt. sna is preserved unaltered in the Umbr. -sna-ta 
(neut. pl.) a-sna-ta (A. and K. ‘Umbr.’ ii. 374). Corssen i”, 434 
adds the Umbrian river Var. — To the rt. sna we may also trace the 
Irish forms ro snd ‘I swam,’ with the inflexion of the s-praet. ro 
snaus-(s)a (L. U. 40 a; 114b.) Inf. sném ‘to swim,’ snamach ‘ cork-oak,’ 
‘Ir. Gloss.’ 391 (cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 338): with Lat. natrix we 
may compare Ir. nathir, gen. nathrach ‘ serpent, Z?. 259. 
444, vud-s (for ovvod-s) daughter-in-law. — Skt. snusha 
(for snusd).— Lat. nuru-s (for snusu-s). — OHG. 
snur, AS. snor. — Chl. snticha (snocha, synocha). 
Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W.1i. 2, 478, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 138. — The by-form 
820 evvuds quoted in many lexicons rests exclusively on the reading évvds 
in two MSS. of Pollux ii. 32, where Bekker reads vvés with the 
concurrence of Lobeck (‘ Elem.’ i. 144). — ChSl. ch regularly = s. — 
The Indo-Germanic primitive form is therefore snusa, which has been 
regarded by some scholars, as by Pictet 11. 372, as contracted from 
sunu-sa, and derived from the Skt. siinu-s ‘son,’ with the sense of the 
‘Sohnerin’ common in the Black Forest.— On the further use for » 
‘pride,’ ‘girl’ cp. Haupt ‘ Opuse.’ 11. 402. 
444b. Pronominal st. vw, vai ve-iv. — Skt. nau (Zd. nd) 
acc. dat. gen. dual, na-s acc. pl. of the pronoun 
of the first person.— Lat. n0-s, n6-bi-s. — ChSl1. 
na stem of the dual and plural of the pronoun 
of the first person.— Olt. ni nos, cechtar nathar 
(gen. du.) uterque nostrum ; Cymr. ni, ny nos. 
Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gr.’ i. 114, etc. — Perhaps na has originated from ma 
(No. 460).— Beside Oly. nz a form sni, like Cymr. chwi (chw = 
primitive sv), Olr, si-sst ‘your,’ beside Lat. vds (Z®. 325, 370). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 387 


444 ¢@. v@-To-v, v@-To-s back, vé-T-10-s, v@-Tla-io-s in the 
back, vw-7-i¢erv to turn backwards, véd-o-di(v) 
away, separated, vo-c-di-¢ecOar to turn one’s 
self away. — Lat. na-tes. 

Pauli ‘ Korpertheile’ 14.— ‘Studien’ i. 1, 257, i. 2, 298. — 
Déderlein ‘ G1.’ 2480. — The root-syllable is vw, vo, Lat. na, the suffix 
in Gk. ro, in Lat. #2. In vd-c-du probably has fallen out and o arisen 
from r, the latter as in odo, dual of the stem tva, so that véodu = 
natibus. — A connexion with Skt. nam ‘bend,’ part. na-td-s ‘bent’ 
(cp. No. 431) is probable. Fick i%. 649. 

445. olvd-s oiv7y one. — OLat. oino-s, Lat. uinu-s, Gni-o(n), 
awni-cu-s. — Goth. ain-s eis, povos, aina-ha povo- 
yevyns.—OPruss. ain-s one. — OL. otn unus, ointu 
(gen. ointad) unitas, Cymr., Corn., Arem. wn one. 

Pott i. 123, W. i. 618, Bopp ‘ Vel. Gr” ii. 56, who quotes évos as a 
word for the ‘ace’ on dice. But this rests only on a false reading in 
Pollux ix. 95.— oivoy kai oivyy was the phrase in Greek for a throw 
at dice, which was also called yios. Pollux vii. 204 explains the 
name in these words éore d€ oivy) mapa trois "Iwoupovds. With this Hesych. 
agrees: oivigew* 7d povagew kata yhoooay, olvavra’ — from the desiderative 
oivdw, cp. povdw, toudw — povnpy, like oiévra (ib.) from ofos. Cp. Lobeck 
‘El.’ i. 43.—The stem aina for ‘unity’ is proved thus to be a 
common European form. The Skt. @ka-s, the Zd. aé-va are other 
extensions of the same stem az. aé-va is probably equal to the Gk. 
oio-s (cp. Cypr. offo-s : Deecke-Siegismund ‘Stud.’ vii. 253), for in the 
accusative form éyum or ¢im it comes very close to it in form, and 
also in meaning in its signification of ‘alone’ which it bears, as well 
as that of ‘one.’ Cp. No. 599, Corssen i. 387.— unc-ta (old oneia) 
Corssen ii. 187 connects not with this group, but with dyxo-s ‘mass.’ 
The old o is no objection to the derivation from oznu-s as we see from 
coraverunt by the side of covrare, curare. 

446. dvo-ua(r) name (Aeol. dvupa, Ion. ovvopa), dv-dvu- 
flo-s, veévupv-o-s nameless, cvopaivw, dvouaca 
name. 

Skt. n@-ma(n) name, ndéma adv. by name, namely, 
perchance. — Zd. ndman, Armen. anwan name. 
Lat. nd-men, ndmin-d-re, nun-cupare. — Umbr. nume, 

nome (dat. nomn-e). 
Goth. na-méd gen. na-min-s dvopa, namnzyan, ga- 
namn-jan dvopmagev. 
Cc 4% 


321 


388 BOOK II. 


ChSl. i-me dvopa, imen-ova-ti dvoudgev. 
OIr. ainm (nom. pl. anmann) nomen, ainmn-ig-ther 
nominatur, Cymr. enw nomen (Z?. 115). 


Bopp ‘GI. Benf. ii. 144, Fick i%. 68. — Certain as it is that the 
words quoted belong to each other, it is difficult to explain how they 
originated. Previously I agreed with my predecessors in deriving 
them from the root gna (yyw) ‘recognize ’ (so ‘ Pet. Dict.’ Grassmann). 
But against this view serious objections have been made, first by Pott 
(W. i. 53), and then with greater decisiveness by Windisch ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xxi, 422, and Joh. Schmidt xxiii. 268. The latter assumes a primitive 
form an-man with the secondary forms an-a-man, na-man, nd-man. 
With the older explanation the loss of the g causes difficulties, for 
this finds its analogies only in Latin and Greek : with the more recent 
explanation we can account for the Indo-Iranic, Armenian, Teutonic, 
Slavonic, and Keltic, but the Lat. co-gnd-men, a-gnd-men, 1-gno-minia 
remain quite unintelligible, for, in spite of the close kinship in mean- 
ing with ndmen, we should have to take them as late imitative forms 
from gnd-sco; and it would be difficult to explain the Ionic ovopa 
(* dvopa rests upon a bad reading in Theocr. v. 13), while it is more 
easily explained from 6-yvo-ya with a prothetic 0 (*o-gno-ma). Besides 
with the new view there is a complete lack of an etymon, while 
the old seemed to explain ‘name’ very simply as ‘means of knowing’ 
Kennzeichen). — In defence of the old explanation it may be suggested 
perhaps, that even in the period of united life, na-man was formed by 
the side of gna-man, that only the Graeco-Italians took with them 
gna-man into their home, and transformed it in their own fashion, 
so that the loss of the g came in much later with them, that in all 
the other nations na-man either remained unchanged, or was metathe- 
sised into an-man at a time when all consciousness of an initial g 
had long been lost. The quantity of the stem-syllable was governed 
by the very diverse analogies of the neuter words in man (Gk. pa-r) 
in the individual languages. — dvopa agrees with ddua, méua, Oéua, — 
For the developement of meaning we may notice the similar usage 
of the Skt. naman (e.g. drjam naman) and the Lat. and Umbr. nomen 
(e.g. nomen latinum) for all that is called Aryan, or Latin (‘Pet. Dict.,’ 
Grassmann, Darmesteter ‘ Mém.’ 1. 395). — The syncope usual in Skt. 
for certain forms (e. g. gen. némn-as) reappears both in the Umbr. dat. 
nomn-e and in the Gk. vadvupvo-s, i. €. vy-ovuypav-o-s, which, like dvopaive, 
points to the stem without the appended r.— The Irish primary 
form anaman is identical with the Gk. évopay in dvopaivw. Nom. plur. 
anmann with nn at the end of the stem, as always in the plural of 
neuters in -man (Z*, 268). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 389 


447. dvv€g (st. 6-vvx) nail, claw. — Skt. nakhd-s, nakhd-m 
nail, claw. — Lat. ungui-s. — Goth. ga-nagl-jan 
mpoondobvy, OHG. nag-al. — Lith. ndg-a-s, Ch8l. 322 
nogu-tt nail, claw. — Olr. inga (dat. pl. cngn-cb), 
OCymr. eguin unguis (Z?. 267, 826). 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iil. 107, Benf. i. 124, ii. 23, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ p. 
150, ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 336, Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 454.— Lobeck ‘ Elem.’ i. 84 con- 
jectures from a purely Greek standpoint a connexion with vicce 
‘scratch,’ ‘pierce,’ ‘ strike:’ for which Fick i°. 124 brings forward 
analogies from various languages, including OHG. nagan, though 
this differs in the vowel. Cp. vioca ‘meta.’ The word for nail is 
very ancient, but it appears with different suffixes; Skt. kh here 
stands for an earlier gh. The relation of wngui-s to Skt. nakhd-s is 
like that of wmbilicu-s to Skt. nabhi-s (No. 403). The root is nagh, by 
metathesis angh ; hence Windisch ‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 274 rightly places 
here Skt. digh-ri-s, dhri-s and ChSl. noga ‘foot.’ Also Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ 
x1. 435 is right in saying that the Greek v is inserted (cp. p. 730). My 
earlier view that the 6 of évvg was prothetic, breaks down upon Lat. 
u, fcr Latin has no tendency to prothesis. 


448. ovo-s price of purchase, avy purchase, @vé-o-pat 
buy. — Skt. vasnd-s price of purchase, vasnd-m 
reward, vasna-ja-mi I bargain. — Lat. vénu-m, vén- 
eo, ven-do. — ChSl. vén-i-ti vendere, vén-o dos. 

Pott W. ii. 2, 140, Benf. i. 313, Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 135, Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ 
iv. 166. — There are traces of the initial consonant in the augment 
(€-wvov-pnv). — There is some doubt about the Slav. words expressed 
by Mikl. ‘ Lex.’ — Bréal ‘ Mém.’ ii. 319 adds vzn-dew and explains it 
‘qui déclare donner caution’ (cp. ji-dex). 


M 


Greek p corresponds to an Indo-Germanic m, preserved also 
in all the other languages. 


449, dua (Dor. dua) at the same time, dyuo-s united, to- 
gether, 6uod together (dud-Oev, dpud-ce), dpo-io-s 
like, 6poé-co-s levelling, dua-Xd-s level, like. 

Skt. samd-s even, like, samd-m (ady.) together, sama 


390 BOOK II. 


in like manner, through the midst. — Zd. hama 
the same, the like. 

Lat. sim-tli-s, sim-ul, simul-ta(t)-s, simul-d-re, OLat. 
sumitu. 

Goth. OHG. sama idem, Goth. sam-ana, OHG. saman, 
zt-samane together, Goth. samath, OHG. samet to- 
gether, simul. 

ChSl. samt ipse, solus. 

OlIr. som in the 3 pers. ipse (Z?. 326), samail simili- 

323 tudo, samlaim comparo, int-(s)amail imitatio, 
co-smail similis ; Cymr. hafal similis. 

Bopp ‘Gl. — The Doric dua, disputed by Kissling ‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 200, 
but admitted p. 217, is quite established e.g. Pind. ‘Pyth.’ iii. 36, 
Theocr. ix. 4 (Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 34, 372): the only question is whether 
it ought to be written with « subscript, as Lentz maintains on Herodian 
1. 489. It would seem to me hardly explicable that a form dua, 
really in use, should be shortened into dua (cp. pupa and xpiga). The 
Aecol. spir. lenis and v are seen in duv-dus.— For dpotos, which is 
distinct from spoio-s, Déderl. ‘G1.’ 1061.— simul : simili-s = facul 
(facul-ta-s) : facili-s; both correspond in the suffix to the Gk. épadds. 
One explanation of simitu (for simitus) is attempted by Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ 
v. 240, another by Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 23.— The Olr. and OCymr. 
particle amal ‘sicut’ (Z*. 733) is without the initial s.— There is 
probably a connexion with the prefixes 4, d, 6 to be discussed under 
No. 598, and with No. 453. 


449 b. dud-w mow, gather, dun-ro-s harvest, dun-ré-s 

time of harvest, duadda (auddn) sheaf. 

Lat. me-t-o0, mes-si-s, mes-sor. 

OHG. md-j-an, AS. mdv-en mow, OHG. md-dari 
mower, MHG. md (n.) mowing, [-math]. . 

Olr. meithel a party of reapers, meithleoir messor, 
OCymr. anter-metetic semiputata, Corn. midil 
messor. 


Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 261, Pictet ii. 101, Stokes ‘Corm. Transl.’ 
p- 107, ‘ Beitr.’ iv. 408.—The fundamental idea cannot have been 
that of ‘cutting off, for dyav, duac6a mean rather ‘gathering in’ 
(dunodpevos yada év raddpovow « 247). — Thea of dude varies in quantity 
from Homer and Hesiod onwards (cp. Herder ‘De 4 vocali apud 
Homerum producta’ Berlin 1876 p. 69). This prevents me from 
taking this vowel as prothetic, as I did previously. I prefer to start 


ade 
REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF soUNDS. \\~» 891) 


~\N Vv 
RN NL / 
_ 


with Fick i’. 493, Osthoff ‘Forsch. i. 29, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Ztechr Swai” ( 


277 from a rt. am ‘take,’ ‘grasp,’ from which come dpn(d) ‘sickle, 
‘shovel,’ ‘rake,’ dui-s ‘chamber-pot,’ au-vio-v ‘sacrificial bowl,’ du-dpa 
‘conduit, ‘canal,’ perhaps a-rho-v ‘bilge water,’ du-ddn, dada 
‘sheaf,’ Skt. dm-a-tra-m ‘vessel,’ ‘ pitcher,’ MHG. dme, éme, ‘ awme,’ 
‘cask’ [Ohm]. By metathesis ma is formed from this, whence the 
words for mowing in Latin, Teutonic, and Keltic, me-t-o, expanded 
by a ¢ (cp. ChSl. metg ‘verro’), and also ma-tula, ma-tella = dis. 
ayav is doubtless a denominative from duy.—It is not improbable 
that Lat. em-ere, originally, and in compounds ‘ take,’ Umbr. emantur 
= ‘sumantur,’ Oly. ar-fo-imim ‘ suscipio’ (Z?. 883), Lith. im-%, ChSl. 
wm-a ‘take’ are only phases of the same root. 


450 and 451. a-ye(B-o (Pind. dpet-w) change, apeiB-o-par 
reply, aped-ca-cbar dpeiBecOar, diedOeiv, 
Tepat@cacba: (Hesych.), rap-apeiB-ev pass 
by, ao.B7 change, exchange. 

Skt. mtv (miv-d-mi) shove, move, kama- 
mu-ta-s moved with love. 

Lat. mov-eo, m6-tu-s, md-men-tu-m, mu-td-re, 
mu-tuu-s. 

Lith. mau-ju, inf. mauti shove. 


‘Pet. Dict.’ under miv, Fick i3. 726. These words are discussed 
with very different results by Benfey ii. 33, ‘ Ztschr.’ vu. 50, Pott 
W. i. 283, Doderl. ‘Synon. u. Etym.’ vi., Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 429. — 
We may start most safely from a rt. mav, whence come mov-eo, and 
with a prothetic da dueto, which do not differ from each other more 
than clu-eo and kdv-o. In miv and dyci8o the 7 appears; cp. deido 
and vad (No. 298). For 8 as the representative of F p. 586. The 
Sicelic poi-ro-s (Hesych. Varro ‘L. Lat.’ v. 179), if we have the 
genuine form recorded, probably stands for poiF-ro-s ; the @ in mi-tuu-s 
(cp. mor-twu-s) and miu-td-re points to ovt (cp. pri-dens, bii-bus). — 
All the uses of these words may be drawn from the fundamental idea 
of ‘pushing, ‘pushing out of place. For even the Greek words 
have by no means the general meaning of ‘exchange,’ but, especially 
in their intransitive usage, that of ‘change of place;’ this appears 
most conspicuously in the middle dpeiBecOar (drapei(BecOa, dvrapeiBerbat), 
‘to thrust oneself in,’ just as in the frequentative miut-are the more 
pregnant meaning appears. — The Skt. rt. ma (mé) of apa-mayé ‘change,’ 
ni-ma-ja-s ‘exchange’ (subst.), though perhaps to be compared with 
me-d-re, and more certainly with ChS]. mé-na peraBody, Lith. mai- 
na-s ‘exchange’ (subst.) maing-ti‘ exchange’ (verb), can at most 


eo 


Or 


392 BOOK II. 


stand in a more distant relation. — Besides this, it now seems to me 
probable that the words previously placed apart under No. 451, 
d-pv-v-o ‘keep off,’ d-wt-vo-par ‘defend myself,’ d-pi-v-rep ‘ defender ’ 
(’Aptvras, Apuvias), a-puva ‘defence,’ the Homeric pivy ‘pretext’ (pivyecr), 
pivacba’ mpopaciterOa [Alcaeus p. 86 Bergk|], all came from the rt. 
mu, originating in mav miv, with the modified meaning ‘ to push away,’ 
‘to thrust off. Cp. Aristophanes of Byzantium (p. 213 Nauck): 
dpivacba ridera Kai advri Widod Tod dueiyyacOa (Simon. Ceus ed. Schneide- 
win fr. 115).— On the other hand the Latin words moe-nia, mi-ru-s 
(OLat. motro-s), munire, com-mini-s = Osc. miini-ka, all come from 
rt. mi, preserved in Skt. mt (mi-nd-ti) ‘strengthen,’ ‘found,’ ‘ build,’ 
mi-t ‘ post,’ (cp. Lat. mé-ta) and in Lat. ad-mi-ni-culu-m, so Fick 1°. 
724, Osthoff ‘ Forsch.’ 1. 83 ff. — Much is taken differently by Fick 
VP Ate2its 


452. Root eu (Fen) €u-€-w (pf. éu-ju-exa) vomit, €u-e-To-s, 
€u-€-ol-§ Vomiting. 
Skt. rt. vam (vdm-d-mi) vomo, vam-ana-m, vam-a- 
thu-s, vam-i-s vomitus. — Zd. vam vomere. 
Lat. vom-o, vom-i-tu-s, vom-i-tio. 
ON. vom-a nausea, aegritudo, vema nauseare. 
Lith. vem-j-v (inf. vém-ti) vomo, vem-alat (pl.) vomit. 
Bopp~ G1.,’ Pott W. i. 2, 222, Benf. 1. 331, Pictet ‘Ztschr.’ y. 348. 
— It seems to me that Lat. vdm-er ‘ ploughshare’ cannot be so safely 
compared as vdm-ica ‘ sore.’ — For the vowel of the middle syllable in 
éu-e-To-s, Skt. vam-a-thu-s, and Lat. vom-i-tu-s cp. ‘Greek Verb’ p. 
496. The difference of the radical vowel in Greek and Latin depends 
upon the influence of the v, which in Latin likes to be followed by o. 
—WNo traces of the F can be shown to exist in Greek itself, 


453. npt-, Hyt-ov-s, Lesb. gen. plur. aiuicéwv.—Skt. sar-, 
d-sa-mi-s not half, complete. — Lat. sémi-, sémi-s. 
— OHG. sami- half. 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott ii’. 337, Benf. 1. 389, Grimm ‘Gr.’ 11, 553. — It is 
certainly right to take the stem sama (Zd. hama ‘like’ by the side 
of hama) No. 449 as our starting point. From the idea ‘like’ that 
of the ‘like parts’ or ‘halves’ is developed very simply. — The derived 
form 7t-cv-s Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr. ii. 62 compares with Zend thri-shva 
‘third part,’ acc. thri-shté-m: perhaps -ov is for -c Fo or oft. — Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ iv. 408 places here OCymr. hanther ‘dimidium’ (Z?. 123), 
anter-metetic ‘ semiputata :’ in ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 339 also the privative am- 
(OIr. am-reid ‘iniquus’ Z?. 860, Cymr. af-rif ‘innumerus’ 893), 
though this has no initial A. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 393 


454. mpéua (adv.) quietly, ypeua-to-s quiet, jpeu-ia quiet, 
npeu-e-@ rest, am quiet, npeuif(-m make quiet, 
apdpevar novyd ce (Hesych.), Zpnp-o-s lonely, 
épnp-ia loneliness, épnu-6-@ make lonely, desert. 

Skt. rt. ram (rdém-é) trans. make firm, intrans. stand 
still, rest, be contented, wpa-ram come to rest, 
ram-d-s, rdm-ana-s loved one, -rém-a pleasure. — 
Zd. ram rest, rejoice, rém-a (f.) rest, airi-ma (n.) 
loneliness. 

Goth. rim-is novyia. 

Lith. rdm-a-s fest, ram-vw-s of gentle nature, rim-te 
to be quiet, rdm-dy-ti to quiet. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.” Pott W. ii. 2, 217, Benf. ii. 10, Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 
358. — The fundamental notion of comfortable rest evidently underlies 
all these forms. I cannot suppose that we have in the Gk. 7 the Skt. 
preposition d@, because of é¢pyp-o-s, the é of which is certainly no other 
than the é of ¢pvd-pd-s (No. 306), i.e. prothetic.—Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ 
vi. 19 defends the derivation (previously advanced by Benfey) of the 
Homeric vareués, vwdeuéws immediately from this root, but the in 
that case looks strange. — As we find in Skt. besides ram the root ran 
(rdna-tc) with precisely similar meanings, Fick i°, 186 assumes a root ra, 
from which he derives Gk. épo-s, épa-pat etc. Cp. part. ra-ta-s=é-pa-ro-s, 
rd-t-s ‘rest,’ ‘pleasure,’ ‘intercourse’ with ¢p-s, — These words are 
thoroughly discussed by Brugman ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 587, Iam not sure 
of anything more than the connexion of the words given in the text. 

455. Root var (for nak) wdoo-w knead, wipe, péy-pa, pay- 
i(d)-s, wa¢-a dough, bread, pay-ev-s baker, pdy- 
elpo-s cook, wax-Tpa kneading-trough. 

Skt. mak (mdKe) bruise, by-form mark (Pet. Dict.). 

Lith. mink-au, mank-szt-av knead, mink-sz-ta-s soft, 
loose, ChSl. ma@k-a farina, mekti-kt% soft, mek- 
na-ti mollescere. 

Pott W. i. 561, Fick 1°. 707, Bugge ‘ Stud.’ iv. 336. — I have 326 
tried to show in the ‘ Prooem. ind. lect. Kil’ 1857 p. vii. that « is 
here the original final consonant of the root, and that hence came 
pdaoow from pak-jo, but that y is softened from «. Hesych. pak-apia 
Bpapa ek opod kat addirov. Perhaps mdc-er-ia as ‘a kneaded 
clay-wall,’ macer-are ‘to make soft’ are also related. The former re- 
minds us again of Hesych. pax-éda (cp. paxedos)’ hpdypara, Spvdpakro., 
pdy-etpo-s is from an older *pay-apo-s, like éraipos from érapo-s, dveipo-s 
from ovap.— There is some probability in Schwabe’s conjecture 


O94 BOOK II. 


(‘ Demin.’ p. 98), that md-la, whose diminutive mawzlla shows that x 
has been lost before 7 (Corssen i’. 642), belongs to pacow, and thus 
denotes the organ ‘quod cibos depsit ac subigit.’ 


456. Root pad pad-apo-s streaming, dissolved, pad-¢-o 
dissolve, pac-76-s breast, wa¢o-s nipple (?).— Lat. 
mad-e-o, mad-i-du-s, mad-e-sc-o, made-facio, ma- 
nare (?). 

Pott i’. 199, Benf. i. 514, Fick i?. 711.— The use of the rt. pad 
for the falling off of the hair is explained from the similar use of 
the Lat. defluere, for just as falling hair is called defluentes or deflut 
caupilli, so padav means ‘to be bald,’ padifew ‘to make bald,’ padov Aciov 
(Hesych.). — In Skt. the root mad (mdd-a-mit mad-ja-mt) means ‘ to be 
drunk,’ mdd-a-s ‘drunkenness,’ also ‘ pride,’ ‘joy, and ‘sucum qui 
elephantis tempore quo coitum appetunt e temporibus effluit, mat-ta-s 
‘drunken,’ which Benf. compares with the similar meaning of mad-i- 
du-s (also mar-é-du-s Loewe ‘ Prodr.’ 353). In Petronius matu-s has 
the same meaning. — It seems very probable that md@-na-re originated 
in mad-na-re as the denominative of a lost * md-nu-s mad-nu-s. But 
also the Gk. pavé-s ‘rarus’ (naval rpixes the result of padav) comes very 
near. — Cp. root pvd No. 479, and pé ea, pdea p. 662. 

457. pad-akd-s, wad-8-aKd-s soft, a-uadd-s tender, BrAn- 
x-p0-s a-BdAn-x-pd-s soft, weak, BAdé weak, 
cowardly, wdA-6-n Hesych. pe-padray-pévos Knpés, 
p@dAv-s, w@Av-po-s feeble, lazy. 

Lat. molli-s, molli-tie-s, mollire. 
OHG. mar-awi, mar-o mellow, tender, murwt 
mellow [mtérbe|, weak. 


. Benf. i. 503, where Skt. mla(mla-ja-m7) ‘fade’ is also compared. Pott 
W.1. 595, 11. 1, 543, Froehde ‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 260. — We must start 
from -a rt. mal (by-form mar), from which with a prothetic @ came 
d-pad-o-s, d-B\n-x-pé-s, to the latter of which words BAa€ forms an inter- 
mediate step. We may add Lat. mal-tds ‘molles’ (Lucil. ap. Non. 
259), and also pad-kd-v' padaxdv, padr-kio’ Kkaxkas éyo Hesych., padk-evi-s* 
mapOévos Kpnres Hesych. — pad-v-s is completely identical in sound and 
meaning with molli-s (for mol-vi-s) and OHG. mur-wi, *mol-vi-: 
por-v=tenut : tav-v, pervs is explained by Bpadvs, vwOpds, pwrvrepos by 
GuBduUTepos, porvew by mpaivew, i.e. mollire, and is also used of the 
mollifying of ‘wounds’ and the ‘ softening of the flesh.’ karapwdiveo Oat 
is commonly applied to the gradual disappearance of a sore. — Perhaps 
mul-ier (cp. padrkevis) is really=mollior, like Onditepae yuvaikes. So 
already Isidorus. — There is no direct connexion, as Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS, 395 


323 assumed, with mrd-vd-s ‘ soft,’ ‘tender, which belongs to the rt. 
mard ‘crush, ‘rub away,’ and goes along with Lat. mordé-re (Zd. 
mared ‘bite’), and as Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ vu. 226 recognized, with 327 
d-paddv-vew ‘break,’ ‘weaken’ (No. 255 b).— On the other hand 
d-wBdv-s, for *a-pAv-s, has come from the same root with syncope of the 
radical vowel. The notions ‘ weak,’ ‘ dull,’ ‘stupid’ are closely akin. 
— OHG. marawi reminds us of the OIr. marb ‘dead:’ ep. No. 468. 

458. pdp-va-par (udp-va-wat Hesych.) fight. — Skt. rt. 
mar (mr-nad-mi) or marn (mrn-a- Ha crush, dash 
to pieces, pra-mr-na-mi crush, destroy. 

‘Pet. Dict.,’ Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i, 135, Fick 1°. 717. It cannot be 
denied that there is a connexion with rt. pep, pop (No. 468); but we 
must not forget that papvacba is also found used of a ‘wrestling-match’ 
(o 31), so that the fundamental notion cannot be ‘to kill’ or ‘to wish 
to kill.’ Cp. note to No. 481. 

459. Root way pdady-o-par (fat. pay-é-copar) fight, way-7 
battle, wady-ipo-s warlike, mp0-uayo-s champion, 
pdyx-aipa knife, sword. 

Lat. mac-td-re slaughter. 

Bopp ‘Gl.’ Benf. 1. 42, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 19 ff., Leo Meyer vi. 426, 
Pott W. i. 1002.—TI cannot follow Corssen (‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 270) in 
deriving mac-ta-re (cp. No. 19) in both its meanings from the notion 
of increasing, inasmuch as it is too closely connected in its meaning 
of slaughter with the words here collected ; nor yet Kuhn in joining 
the root pay with oday and Goth. slah-an.— The epic pres. pax-é- 
o-pat, pax-el-o-uat is to be referred to a noun-theme payes, as Ted€é-o, 
terei-@ to teres. — Goth. mék-2, ChSl]. mié-i payaipa are quite distinct 
phonetically, and therefore in etymology. 

460. Stem ye éve pronoun of the first person sing., éu-6-s. 
— Skt. Zd. ma (Skt. ace. md-m, mda). — Lat. me, 
me-u-s, Umbr. dat. me-he.— Goth. mi-s mihi, 
mi-k me.—ChSIl. ace. me, Lith. dat. md-n etc. — 
OlIr. mé ego, -m- mihi, me, né-m-charat non me 
amant, do-m ad me, mo meus, Cymr. mi ego. 

Bopp ‘ Vergl. Gr.’ 11. 104, Schleicher ‘ Comp.’ ? 628 ff. 

461. Root ve pé-rpo-v measure, wéTp-Lo-s measured, proper, 
peTpecy to measure. 

Skt. rt. ma (md-mi, mi-m2) measure, ascribe, shape, 
ma-trd, md-tra-m measure, measure of time, 
matter, md-tar measurer, md-na-m measure, mé@- 


396 BOOK II, 


na-s building. —Zd. md measure, make, md (f.) 
measure. 

Lat. mé-td-7re, mé-td-ri, mé-ti-or, mensa, mensura, 
Ni-M1-s. 

ChSl. mé-ra Lith. mé-rd measure, ma-tt%-tt measure, 
méta-s time, year. 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott W. i. 266, Benf. ii. 31 f.—Cp. rt. ped No. 286 
and rt. pev No, 429.—I now omit pi-po-s, pi-pé-o-pa as doubtful : 
Fick i°, 722 groups them with Skt. ma@ ‘exchange’ (mdjda-te).— 

828 It is not improbable that the OLat. md-nu-s ‘bonus’ (Cerus manus 
‘Carm. Sal.’) with im-mdni-s, which is undoubtedly its negative, 
belongs here (cp. pérpuos): its loc. mané is ‘in good time, and J/dnés 
are ‘good spirits’ (Preller, ‘Rém. Mythol.’ p. 72), Corssen i*. 431. 
Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 383 compares mdnu-s with the comp. dpeiveav. — 
amd-nu-s hand (Osc. acc. mani-m) as the ‘ measurer,’ ‘ feeler,’ ‘ shaper’ 
(cp. Skt. md-tra-m = md-ter-ie-s) is discussed by Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 
300. We have also from the same root, with a different suffix pd-py 
(7 xelp Kata Iivdapoy ‘Schol. B. L. ad Il. 0 137,’ Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ p. 
74), from which the ancients correctly derived etpapys, edpdpeca (cp. 
edxepns). — Corssen i?. 432 refers also Lat. mds to this group. — Cp. 
No. 471, 472. — Oly. tomus ‘mensura’ is taken as a compound of 
mess ‘iudicium’ No. 286 (Z?. 787). 

462. péy-a-s (by-stem peyado), pelfwv, péy-toro-s great, 
peya-Avv-w magnify, peyaip-w esteem as a great 
thing, grudge, péy-€6-os greatness. 

Lat. mag-nu-s, m&-jor, maximu-s, mag-is, magis-ter, 
magistr-atu-s. 

Goth. mik-il-s péyas, mikil-j-an peyaddvery (OHG. 
mihhil), comp. mais (OHG. mér), superl. maist 
adv. 76 mA€lorov. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.’ s. v. mah, Pott. W. iii. 955. — Skt. mah, mah-d-s, mah-Gnt, 
mah-at, mah-a@ ‘great’ closely approxiniates to these words. But 
the h, which points to a gh, does not agree with either the Greek 
medial or the Gothic &. Two alternatives are possible here. The one, 
that the root was originally magh, the same as that which occurs in 
Goth. mag divaya, and which will present itself as No. 473. In that 
case we must assume a transition from gh into g. This is the view 
of Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 92, and Fick 1°. 168. In the same way 
Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 327 (cp. Ascoli xvii. 274) thinks he can recog- 
nize in the Osc. Mahiis = Magius a word belonging to this root, 
and pointing to an Ital. gh. The g in mag-nu-s, mag-is, like that in 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 397 


the Zd. maga ‘greatness,’ and the z of maz mazant ‘great, may 
just as well have originated in g as in gh. The other alternative is 
that there were from early times three related roots side by side, mak 
(No. 90),,mag and magh, all three perhaps to be traced back to ma, 
and all with the meaning of extension. The latter view, which Sonne 
also approves (‘Ztschr.’ x. 129), recommends itself to me, mainly 
because the phonetic changes it assumes are less gratuitous. — Cp. 
‘ Ztschr.’ 1. 325. —— It is remarkable that in the three words, belonging 
to three families of speech, collected above, the positive shows a more 
derivative stem-form than the comparative and superlative. — peyaipo, 
perhaps also péyapo-v ‘chamber,’ from a stem with p instead of the A 
appearing in peyado: cp. p. 558.— The Keltic words for ‘great,’ 
Oly. mar, mér, Cymr. mawr, show no trace of the guttural, and 
come from root ma. We may add the compar. Olr. mdo, mé, 
Corn. moy, Cymr. mwy ‘major’ (like Skt. dév-ija-s to di-rd ‘ far’), 
identical with Goth. mais: superl. OIr. mdam, Cymr. mwyaf 
(Z?. 276, 299). Of the same origin is Olr. méit, Cymr. meint 
‘ oreatness’ st. manti (Z?. 845). 

463. pei-d-os (Hesych.), wei-d-n-wa smile, pe-d-d-o, pel- 
didw smile.— Skt. rt. smi (smdj-@) smile, smi-td-m 
a smile, smdja-m astonishment, admiration. — Lat. 
mi-ru-s, ni-miru-m, mird-ri.— OHG. smie-Il-en, 329 
smie-r-en smile. —ChSI. smi-ja-ti se yedav, smé- 
chit yédos, Lett. smee-t laugh. 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott W. i. 636, Benf. i. 527, Fick i°. 254. — The 6 will 
be discussed on p. 656.— A trace of the initial o is preserved in 
giro-ppevdns. — Here belong the proper names Medias, MeiSwv, Meidvdos. 
— In mi-ru-s (cp. Skt. smé-rd-s ‘ smiling’), as in eld-ru-s the 7 belongs 
to the suffix, so in OHG. bi-smer ‘ridicule.’ The German verbs in 
r and 7 are denominative. But peiA-cyo-s cannot be compared (Kuhn 
‘Ztschr.’ ii. 264) because of the Aeol. peAdtxos (Ahr. ‘ Aeol,’ 58). Cp. 
No. 464. — Otherwise as to miru-s Corssen 17. 508. 

464. peir-.a (pl.) love-gifts, propitiatory offerings, peiA- 
tx-o-s (Aeol. wéAArxos) mild, peA-fy-vo-s mild, 
soft, wecA-cx-in (Hom.) mildness, perAfoo-o soften, 
petr-ely’ apéoxervy Hesych. 

Goth. mild-s dirdaTopyos, OHG. mil-ti mild. 

ChSl. mil-% éXeeuvos, mil-ovati €Xeeiv, mil-osit mise- 
ricordia, mil-o dowry, Lith. mal-dné grace, myl-iu 
love, meilw-s lovely. 

OlIr. melddach gratus (Z?. 61). 


398 BOOK II. 


Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 126, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 486. — My previous 
discussion of these words started from the Skt. rt. mard (mrlami), the 
meaning of which, ‘ to be gracious,’ ‘ kind,’ ‘to rejoice,’ with mr{t-ka-m 
‘grace,’ ‘pity,’ agrees with that of the words here given, especially 
with pecdt(docew (dpeidtyos, dueidixros). Still I renounce the attempt, 
after what Joh. Schmidt has remarked in opposition, to establish 
phonetic agreement, as the Vedic / of this root is generally regarded 
as the representative of the older ¢.— The traces in the Greek 
words of a double X should be noticed: the clearest instance is the 
Aeol. peaddrrxos (peddrydperde Alcaeus) A trace of the form péAdos 
occurs in the epigram of the Arcadian Echembrotos in Pausan. x. 7, 45 
for the pentameter ends pédea kai €Aéyous ; hence too a different light 
falls upon the well-attested reading in the ‘Hymn. in Mere.’ 502 6eds 8’ 
Uro pédos devdev. From pedd came by compensatory lengthening Ion. per 
In peiua, pecdioo, etc.; Dor. pnd in Ew-pndo-s, KadXi-pndo-s, Bido-pnAa, 
words of musical reminiscence which Welcker (‘ Ep. Cyclus’ i?. 257) 
is certainly correct in deriving from ‘song’ rather than from ‘sheep.’ 
ped-n-ew, expanded by a m (‘Exdepyov A 474) evidently meant originally 
‘to sound gentle,’ ‘to gladden,’ peAmeo Oat ("Apnt) ‘to show oneself glad,’ 
‘cheering,’ hence peAnn-Opo-y ‘ delectamentum.’ péd-x-10-v too in Hesych. 
which means inter alia matynov, offers itself for comparison. Upon 
what assimilation the AA rests is hard to say. Perhaps peta is for 
*weh-v-va, dos for peA-vos (cp. Téu-e-vos), pecdetv for ped-veiv, like eideiy 
for Fed-veiv (No. 660). — Pott mentions also the familiar Attic address 
@ pede ‘my dear friend,’ which agrees entirely with the Slav. miu, 
especially in the modern usage of the word, and consequently gives 
a clear instance where one liquid is lost. But pedAeos — according 
to Aristarchus (ed. Lehrs 103) in Homer always only paravos — must 
be kept quite distinct.— The meaning of ‘friendliness’ extends 
through all the forms. By this less physical meaning they are dis- 
tinguished from those quoted under Nos. 457 and 465.—The proper 

330 names MiAdaros (Aeol. form for MiAnros ‘ Anecd. Oxon.’ ii. 239), MéAras, 
Mato, MvAriddns (and Midoy (c)?) seem to be derived from this root 
with « for e (cp. to& rt. eo). 

465. wéAc (st. pedct) honey, pedt-dpov honey-like, pé- 
Atooa bee. — Lat. mel (mell-is), muls-u-s, muls-a, 
muls-um (?). — Goth. milith pédrr. — Oly. mil mel, 
milis suavis (Z?. 238). 


Pott i’. 245, Benf. ii. 358, Stokes ‘Corm., Gl. Tr.’ p. 113. For the 
suffix Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ 1. 150, otherwise, without regard to this, 
Leo Meyer v. 379.— We must suppose that mell-7s (for melt-ds ?) 
is analogous to paut-os, but mel for melt (ep. No. 200) analogous to 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 399 


Goth. milith. muls-u-s for melti-u-s (?). Cp. Corssen ‘Beitr. 327. 
No connexion with Skt. mddhu (No. 322) can be proved. pédAtooa = 
pedir-ja, by-form pediau’ péhiooat Hesych. — Cp. Hehn® 137, Van. 703. 
The latter with Fick 1°. 719 places the word under No. 457. 


466. Root pep, wap. — pep-pynp-a, pép-l-wva care, pep- 
patp-o, peppep-ifw care, pep-pep-a Epya memor- 
able deeds, pdp-tup (udp-Tup-o-s, dp-Tu-s) wit- 
ness, wap-7Tvp-.o-y evidence, wapTvp-o-wa summon 
as witness. 

Skt. rt. smar (smdr-d-mi) remember, think, smr-ti-s 
smar-ana-m memory, remembrance, smar-d-s re- 
collection, remembrance, love. — Zd. mar re- 
member, know, mention, mar-e-ti precept. 

Lat. me-mor, memor-ia, memor-d-re, mor-a. 

OPruss. er-mir-it devise. 


Bopp ‘G1.’ Pott W. u.1, 713, Benf. 1. 38. — The Teutonic words 
(Goth. mér-jan knpiooew, OHG. mari ‘clarus’) I have omitted, because 
Fick ‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 382 doubts the loss of an initial s before m in these 
languages. ‘The group sm is retained only in Skt.; but the notion 
of ‘remembering’ runs through all these words. — peppepa even Hesych. 
explains by dpovridos déva, but pép-pep-o-s has also an active meaning, 
‘inventive,’ also ‘morosus,’ hence probably the proper name Méppepos, 
like peppnpixot: oi meiparai (Hesych.). — pép-t-pva is formed like péd-t-pyvo-s. 
There is more difficulty with the much discussed words i-papo-s, 
€yxeol-u@-po-s, vAakd-ywpo-s, awd-popo-s. Goebel ‘Philol. xix. 418 
derives them from the rt. pap (uappaipw) ‘ glitter,’ which will have to 
be discussed on p. 567. But it is hard to believe that this little-used 
root was employed by Homer in the ‘faded’ sense of ‘to be con- 
spicuous,’ ‘to be prominent,’ especially of dogs (according to this expla- 
nation) ‘conspicuous by barking.’ enary ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 49 starts 
from our rt. pep; the meaning of -pwpo-s would then be something 
like ‘mindful of’ (cp. pojoacbe 5€ Oovpidos ddxjs, dards), @ aS in Tadai- 
mapo-s (rt. mep No. 356), pap (rt. hep), Sena (rt. den). Cp. Monro on B 
292.— On p. 103 we saw that probably mora ‘hesitation’ [Germ. 
Bedenken ‘ bethinking’| belongs to this root, and compared with it 
peAdev in the meaning of ‘delay.’ In this case a trace of the fuller 
initial sound once present is possibly preserved in #-peAd-o-v (‘ Greek 
Verb’ p. 76). pédXew by its other senses is closely connected with the 
rt. pep (Walter ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 383). But from pedAdew again we cannot 
separate ped-ew, ped-eoOar, ped-é-Tn, ped-€-Td-w, ped-e-d-oyn, ped-ed-alvo, 331 
etc., in all of which the notion of careful thought comes out just as in 


400 BOOK II. 


pép=t-uva, ped-er por is related to pédAeoOa like the antiquated + es diinkt 

mir’ [methinks] to ‘denken’ [to think]. For the transition from p 

to \ p. 547 ff.— Having regard to the Lat. mora, moror, poe maraim 
‘maneo, may be placed here. 


467. Root wep pelp-o-war (€u-pop-a, eiuap-rar) obtain a 
portion, pép-os, pep-i(d)-s portion, part, pepi-¢-e 
divide, pcp-o-s lot, fate, potpa proper portion, 
fate, wop-a division (of the Spartan army), pép- 
o.po-s determined by fate. 

Lat. mer-e-o, mer-e-o-r, mer-e-nda, mer-e-tria. 


Pott W. ii. 1, 545 (cp. 112, 388) puts these words together with an 
expression of uncertainty. Otherwise Benf. ii. 33. — The comparison 
of mereo with pépos is found as early as Scaliger ad Varronem 
(Vossius ‘Etymolog.’ p. 318), though with the addition of the 
wonderful reason ‘a peipw i.e. divido, quia meritum fere partium est 
sive labor, sive pretium spectetur,’ whilst Vossius more correctly 
remembers the meaning consequor, sortior (AayBdve, Aaxxavo), and 
quotes merenda dpioroy dekwdv (‘ Gloss. Lab.’), which he compares with 
praebenda. This word points unmistakeably to the fundamental 
notion of division, which appears in dai-s, dap-s (Nos. 256, 261), so 
that mer-e-o therefore means ‘I receive a share’ or ‘as a share, 
mer-e-o-r ‘I receive’ or ‘gain for myself my share.’ — Cp. p. 114. — 
It is not improbable that mer-c-e(d)-s, mera also have developed from 
this root by an expanding ¢. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 111 takes mera simply 

s ‘the earning’ one. For the e of etuapra (€u8parac Hesych.) ep. 
‘Greek Verb’ p. 360. It is difficult to identify the meaning of this 
root with No. 466, though in spite of this Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ v, 417 
attempts to identify them. The fundamental notion of these words 
is ‘to measure out to,’ ‘to distribute to.’ 


468. Root uep (op, wap) &-Bpo-ro-s immortal (a@-pBpdc- 
to-s), Bpo-rd-s mortal (pop-76-s), pap-aiv-w wither 
(trans.), papa-o-0-s withering, parching. 

Skt. rt. mar (mdr-d-mi, mrizé) die, mr-ta-s dead, 
mardju-s, mrt-ja-s mortalis, a-mf-ta-s immortalis, 
a-mf-ta-m drink of immortality, mar-d-s, mr-ti-s 
death, ma@r-i-s pestilence, plague.—Zd. mar die, 
mare-ta mortal, maretan human being. 

Lat. mor-t-o-r, mor-(ti)-s, mor-tuu-s, mort-dli-s, mor- 
bu-s, mar-c-e-0, marc-e-sc-0, marc-i-du-s. 

Goth. mawr-th-r caedes. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF- SOUNDS. 401 


ChSl. mr-é-ti mori, mor-% mors, pestis, st-mri-tt 
mors, mrui-tvt vexpos.— Lith. mir-ti die, mdr-a-s 
plague, mérai (pl.) bier, s-mér-ti-s death. . 

Olr. marb dead, marbaim I kill, Cymr. marw death, 
dead. 


Bopp ‘GI, Pott W. ii. 1, 552, who is right in banishing pépo-s, 
pépo-s, ete. for a well-grounded comparison with pap-aiv-w mor-bu-s, 


which again brings with it Skt. mla (mld-j-2) ‘ fade,’ with which goes: 


the expanded mar-c-é-re = papaiveoOa, compels us to arrive at the 
fundamental notion of ‘ wasting away.’ With this I have endeavoured 
(‘ Ztschr.’ i, 33) to connect also Lat. mar-e (cp. ’Apdi-wapo-s, son of 
Poseidon) with the related Ch.Sl. mor-je ‘sea,’ Lith. médr-és ‘bay,’ 
Goth. mar-ei, Ir. muir ‘sea,’ and Skt. mar-d-s ‘desert,’ mar-d-t 
‘wind,’ on the ground of a common antagonism to the life of vegeta- 
tion. Pictet i. 110 compares Skt. mzra-s ‘sea,’ which is only quoted 
by grammarians. Max. Miiller ‘Lect.’ 1. 320 agrees with me, while 
Corssen i”. 404, 411 refers these words to the rt. pap (appaipe) 
‘glitter’ (cp. ‘Pet. Dict.’ v. p. 570). That the sea glitters is just as 
undeniable as that it makes plants die, and that it causes thirst in 
one who attempts to drink of it. Both explanations are therefore 
possible so far as the meaning goes. The connexion of Goth. maree 
with OF ris. mar ‘ grave,’ ODutch maere ‘ sea,’ ‘marsh,’ ‘ pond,’ and also 
with OHG. muor ‘marsh,’ ‘ moor,’ ‘ morass’ (Schade ‘ Dict.’ 411) isin 
favour of my explanation (cp. Fick i*. 717).— On the gloss euoprev’ 
ameOavev (Hesych.) cp. ‘Greek Verb’ 281.—Cp. also No. 458. — 
Other material bearing on this widely ramifying root is supplied 
abundantly by Diefenbach ‘ Vergl. Wb.’ ii. 38 ff. For the fundamental 
meaning of the root cp. on No. 481.—JIn Ir. marb 6 is for orig. v 
(st. marva-), as in fedb, Cymr. gwedw ‘ vidua,’ tarb, Cymr. taru ‘taurus,’ 
delb, Cymr. delu ‘forma’ (Z?. 54, 130). With marb cp. Germ. miirbe 
No. 457. 


469. péooo-s (Hom. Aecol.), péco-s (Att.) medius (sup. 
péco-aro-s hence peoodr-.o-s), peco-nyv-(s) be- 
tween. | 

Skt. mddlyja-s, Zd. maidhya medius, Skt. madlya- 
md-s, Zd. madh-ema the midmost. 
Lat. med-iu-s, Osc. mef~ia-t (= mediae loe. sing.), 
di-midiu-s, mert-die-s (for medi-die-s). 
Goth. midji-s medius, mid-uma middle. 
pd 


332 


4.02 BOOK II. 


ChSl. megda pécov, mezdu ava pécor, Lith. vidi-s (2) 
the inner, vidvi within, vidurys middle. 
OIr. medén medium (Z?. 778). 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott i’. 105, Benf. 11. 30, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 126, ‘ mezdu = 
medju.’ — péooo-s is for peb-jo-s, wéoo-s is yet further weakened. We 
may notice the loc. peroo. = Skt. mad/yé ‘in the midst,’ Lesb. — Aeol. 
also péowe (Ahr. ‘ Aecol.’ 154). The first component part of peca- 
woduo-s ‘mixed gray,’ is the feminine to this (cp. idia, dyuocia). — It 
cannot be determined whether péo-da and péo-du ‘ until, belong here 
or to pera (No, 212). peoo-nyd perhaps compounded with an adj. 
formed from the rt. dy (cp. ew-iguu-s), similarly per-a&d (No. 212).— 
In Lith. the vis surprising. — Add perhaps the name of the Irish county 
Mide ‘ Meath.’ A shorter stem mid- exists in some compounds accord- 
ing to Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vil. 339. 


470. yy prohibitive particle. —Skt., Zd., OPers. md. 


Bopp ‘ Gl.’ — The prohibitive use is common to these languages. 
333 In Skt. ma@ is used with the conj., optat. of wishing, and imper., like 
vn in Greek. We omit here the Lat. né (cp. No. 437). 


A471. yyy (st. unvs) Ion. pets month, pA-vy moon, pnv- 

taio-¢ monthly. 

Skt. mds, masa-s month, Zd. mdonh (m.) moon, 
month, mdonha (m.) moon. 

Lat. mens-i-s, Mena, mens-truu-s. 

Goth. ména moon, méndth-s, OHG. mdénét month. 

Lith. ménu (gen. ménesio) moon, ménest-s month, 
ChSl. mése-ct moon, month. 

OIr. mé (gen. mts, st. mens-), Cymr. mis month (Z?. 
117). 


Bopp ‘GL, Pott W. i. 272, Benf. ii. 32, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 276, ii. 261. 
— The root is probably ma ‘measure’ (No. 461), and hence the moon 
was described by the original Indo-Germans as ‘the measurer.’ 
Fick i. 722 prefers for the ‘changing moon’ the rt. ma ‘ exchange’ 
mentioned under No. 450. But the root cannot be shown to have been 
used in a sense like that here required. — It is very doubtful to me 
whether we can trace back all the forms of the noun to the primary 
form mans: ph-vm, Mena (menstruationis dea Welcker ‘ Gotterlehre ’ 
552) Goth. ména go back to another form with the suffix -na. But 
the Aeol. pi-os (Ahr. 51) is certainly for pnvo-os, so that it points 
to a stem méns, to which an expanding suffix 7 is added in Skt. and 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 403 


Lith., an a in Skt. Add also the Sabellian mes-en-e=abl. mense, 
explained by Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 165. (Cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 85). 


472. uhrnp (st. untep), Dor. padrnp.—Skt. mata (st. 
mata), Zd. mdtd (st. md-tar).— Lat. mater. — 
OHG. muotar.—ChSl. mati (st. mater). — Lith. 
moté (st. moter). — OIr. mdthir mater. 


Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Potti!. 112, Benf. ii. 31. — The fact that mdatar is found 
as a masculine in the Rigveda, with the meaning ‘measurer’ (‘ Pet. 
Dict.’ v. p. 701) tends to show that the root is no so-called natural 
sound, occurring also in mamma, pappn, but the verbal root ma (No. 
461). Max Miller ‘Oxford Essays’ 1856 p. 15 translates it by 
‘maker,’ and traces it back to the rt. ma in the sense of ‘to fashion,’ 
Related uses of this root (ep. ma-nu-s) are mentioned above. Still we 
might also think of the occupations of the apportioning housewife. In 
any case pa-ia ‘mother’ comes from the same root. — On the phonetic 
irregularity of the Teutonic words see Verner ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 101 ff. 


473. pnx-os, wnx-ap means, expedient, uny-avy device, 

design, upnxavad-cba form designs. 

Skt. mdh-as splendour, power, mah-dn greatness, 
wealth. 

Goth. mag possum, mah-t-s divas. 

ChSl. mog-q (inf. mo§-tz) possum, mos-t% potentia, 
po-mos-tt Bon Geir. 

Olr. do-for-magar augetur (Z?. 883). 


Bopp ‘ G1.’ Pott W. ii. 1001. —Very differently Benf. 1. 353. — 
The Skt. rt. mah (mdh-G-mi) ‘delight,’ ‘rejoice,’ mgh ‘give’ with 
the related words are foreign in meaning (cp. Grassmann ‘ Lex.’ 
1012). The words here given can hardly be separated from mah 
‘oreat’ (No. 462). We must probably start from the fundamental 
idea ‘to have power,’ which among the Greeks developed especially 
in the direction of intellectual power, of clever devices, etc. — pyos 
still has in Homer the prevalent meaning ‘means to (against) some- 
thing, ‘help.’ This same force is noticeable in dunydvos, when active 
‘incapable,’ when passive ‘ impossible.’ — Pott compares also AS. mac- 
ian ‘facere, ‘formare,’ OHG. machén ‘make:’ but though their 
meaning comes very near to that of the Greek words, they belong to 
No. 462 from a phonetic point of view. — Whether OlIr. eumang ‘ potes- 
tas, cumaing ‘ potest,’ cumachte ‘ potentia’ (Z’. 872), belong here is 
doubtful, for the m is single (ModIr. cwm-hachda), hence after remov- 
ing the preposition cum- only ang is left as the root-syllable, and this 

D diz 


335 


404 BOOK Il. 


is established in di-ing ‘impossibilis’ (Z’. 862) with the meaning 
‘posse.’ On the other hand, ni chaemais ‘non poteris’ can hardly be 
anything but the reduplicated. (ep. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii, 225) s- future of a 
root mag, mang, as Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vu. 50 has explained it to be. 


474, Root pir pioy-@, ply-vu-pe (€-ply-nyv, €-wixOn-v) mix, 
piy-a, ply-da, piy-dny (adv.) mixedly, piy-dd-es 
mongrels, hybrids, wigcs mixing. 

Skt. mic-rd-s intermixed, mi¢ra-ja-mi mix, intermix, 
a-mtk-sha mixed milk, curds, miksh,mi-miksh mix. 

Lat. misc-e-0, mix-tu-s (mis-tu-s), mix-tu-ra (mis-ttu- 
ra), mix-ti-o (mis-ti-o), mis-cellu-s, miscell-dneu-s. 

OHG. misk-iu mix. : 

ChSl. més-i-ti miscere, Lith. misz-t¢ to mix oneself, 
misz-ini-s hybrid, matsz-y-tt mix, mingle. 

Corn. cymmysc, Olr. cum-masc commixtio, OIr. com- 
mescatar miscentur (Z?. 473, 901). 

Bopp ‘ G1., W. ii. 2, 569, Benf. ii. 42, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 126, Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ vili. 308.— Evidently mik is the original form and the y 
softened from the x. In the Greek, Latin, and Irish present-stem the 
guttural has been lost before ox, sc. These letters have become at- 
tached to the whole stem in Latin and Keltic. For picyo, Meifias 
cp. Miller ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiv. 495, who tries to prove a connexion with 
OS. mengian, OHG. mengan ‘ mix.’ 


475. pu-vt-w, Hom. pivt6-m diminish, destroy, grow less, 
puvd-¢no-s' odAvyéBios (Hesych.), pivvvOa a little 
while, puvvv@dé-di0-s short-lived. — peloy less, 
peco-@ diminish. 

Skt. rt. mi (mi-nd-mi, mi-nd-mi, mi-j-é) diminish 
(trans. and intrans.). 

Lat. mi-nu-o, mini-tu-s, min-or, min-us, Ose. mins-treis 
=minoris, Lat. minis-ter.—min-imu-s.—Miniciu-s. 

Goth. mins less (adv.), minniza (adj.) smaller, minn- 
ist-s the smallest. 

ChSl. min-ij minor, Lith. minw, ChSl. min-a (inf. 
me-ti) 0AiBw, Lith. mén-ka-s little. 

Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 464, Benf. i. 471, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 126. — With 
regard to the comp. peor I once followed J. Grimm, who assumed 
(‘Gr ii. 658) that peloy was for pwe-vw-v. The comparative stem of 
an adjective st. wwvv would then have to be puwe-to-v, and thence become 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 405 


by syncope pye-wov and by loss of the v peiov (masc. uelwv), while the 
Latin min-us is evidently for min-ius. minis-ter and the Oscan mins- 
treis=minoris, preserved as a comparative. (Mommsen ‘ Unterit. D.’ 
280), like magis-ter have received in addition a second comparative 
suffix. But however certain this explanation of the Latin form is, 
there are difficulties of many kinds in the way of the Greek. Accord- 
ing to the analogy of 98-iw#y we should have expected pw-tov. The 
diphthong « occurs in dpetwv, yepeiwv, 1.e. only where an o has been lost 
between « ands. Hence as the Skt. mi-nd-mi, referred to by Leo 
Meyer ‘G. A.’ 1864 p. 325, makes several parts from rt. ma, e.g. 
aor. a-md-si-t, it will be more correct to start from a rt. ma, which at 
a very early time was accompanied by the weaker by-form mz, just as 
rt. pa by the weaker pi (No. 371). Then pe-i-ov can be explained 
from this ma, as m\e-i-wv from pla. Schleicher also ‘Comp.*’ 465 as- 
sumes for the min occurring in Latin, Teutonic, and Slavonic, an 
older man. We may thus connect with this root also Skt. man-ak ‘a 
little,’ ‘ only,’ min-da ‘ personal defect,’ which resemble Lat. man-cu-s, 
men-da, men-dicu-s. The ‘ Pet. Dict.’ on’ man-dk reminds us of povo-s, 
which, however, from the Epic podvo-s appears to go back to *man-va-s. 
— If any one is not content to interpret the Muvvai as ‘ the little ones,’ 
they may be explained as ‘the destroyers,’ the champions who demolish 
ranks, by referring to Skt. pra-mind-mi ‘supero.—I have now 
omitted the mimetic words puvupd-s ‘whining,’ puvipewv, puvvpi¢erda, Lat, 
minurrire, aS Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 251 more correctly connects them 
with Skt. min-mina-s ‘ speaking indistinctly,’ and adds Lat. min-tri-re. 
—From the Keltic languages the following words probably belong here: 
Ir. min ‘small,’ ‘tender, Cymr. mwyn, Corn. muin ‘ tenuis,’ ‘ exilis’ 
(Z’. 99). Gliick ‘ Kelt. Nam.’ p. 99 compares these words with Gk. pavé-s 
‘thin ’ (cp. No, 456), but this agrees at most with Ir. min in its vowel. 


476. d60-§ tumult. — Skt. math (manth, mdth-d-mi) turn 
round, twirl, shake, manth-d-s, math-ana-m rubb- 
ing, twirling, preparation of butter. — ON. mdnd- 
ull turning stick. — ChSl. met-q turbo, met-ez% 
turbatio, Lith. ment-dri-s (m.), ment-wre (f.) 
twirling stick. — Oly. perf. sing. 8 memaid, ru 
maith broke (intr.) broke out, maided clades 
(Z?. 802), maidm (pl. nom. madmann) eruptio. 


Benf. i. 258, ii. 347, Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 394, Windisch ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 
210. — The primitive form of the root is mat, the aspiration in Greek 
as in Skt. is of later origin. — Kuhn in his essay ‘The Origin of Fire 
and of the Drink of the Gods’ Berl. 1859 discusses the name Ipo-pyn0- 


406 BOOK It. 


ev-s snd its relation to the Skt. pra-mantha-s, the name of an instru- 
ment used in kindling fire by rubbing pieces of wood, with other 
analogies in language and in practice. — Pictet ii, 31 explains further 

336 how this rt. manth with its numerous derivatives, dating from a very 
ancient time, denoted the twirling motion in the preparation of butter. 
According to Aufrecht (ut supra) the root probably occurs, though 
employed in a different sense, in Lat. ment-ula, by-form mencla, cp. 
muto, Loewe ‘ Prodr.’ 303 f. — From Greek pd6-ov" eidds tue dpynoeas 
(Hesych.) may also belong here. 


477. pop-pvp-» murmur, rustle. — Skt. mar-mar-a-s rust- 


ling (adj.), a rustling. — Lat. mur-mur, mur- 
mur-d-re. — OHG. mur-mur-6n, mur-mul-6n. — 
[Germ. murren, murmeln.| — Lith. mur-m-& 


orumble, murm-lén-tt murmur. 

Bopp ‘ G1.’ Benf. 11. 39. 

478. Root uv (2) pu-Kd-s, pd-ri-s° &pwvos (Hesych.) (ep. 
pvdo-s, ptvdo-s, pv-Tn-s, put-76-s). — Skt. mi- 
ka-s dumb. — Lat. mi-tu-s. 

A. Weber ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 318 starts from rt. mw ‘bind’ (No. 451), and 
Max Miller ii. 91 agrees with him, translating mii-ka-s ‘ tongue- 
bound.’ So ‘Pet. Dict.’ Fick 1°. 180. In Skt. we have the un- 
authenticated rts. mia and mav ‘ bind’ and the part. ma-ta-s ‘ bound.’ 
— Ir. mut ‘dumb’ (Corm. ‘Gl. Transl.’ p. 118) is a borrowed word. 
— Perhaps the root of these words is not distinct from ‘that of the 
Gk. p-ey ‘close’ (eyes and mouth), to which belong pt-oy ‘ blinking,’ 
‘short-sighted,’ pvivSa ‘blind man’s buff, pu-ay ‘blink,’ ‘close the 
mouth.’ Intensive pomvay, pomtddew, pvi-o0-rn-s, wv-o-THpio-y are due 
perhaps to an expansion by an s.— The words for ‘secret talk,’ Lat. 
mussare, mussitare ‘mutter, OHG. muccazan, mutilén ‘ mussitare,’ 
Lat. mutire (Enn. ‘Trag.’ fr. 376 Vahlen ‘palam mutire plebejo 
piaculum est’) are referred by Fick i*. 727 perhaps more correctly 
to a root mz ‘sound, to which also pi-6o-s will belong. — Other 
words of similar sound may be omitted. 

479. Root uvd pdd-os moisture, rottenness, pud-d-w am 
moist, rot, pud-afv-w moisten, pvd-adéo-s moist, 
rotten, pvd-év rotten flesh, pid-po-s glowing 
mass of metal. 

Skt. rt. mid (med-ja-mi) orow fat, med-as fat. 
Goth. bi-smett-an émixpiev, OAG. smizan illinere, 
MHG. smuz dirt. 


Benf. 1. 482, who also compares pvo-os ‘loathing,’ ‘abhorrence.’ We 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.07 


should then have to assume a rt. pus expanded by an a, or a suffix -cos 
as in a\-cos. — The German elucidates the interchange between 7 and 
wu. The original form of the root seems to have varied between smud 
and smd. Cp. No. 63, and for the meaning p. 114. — Fick ii’, 183 
regards pvd as a by-form of pad (No. 456). 
480. pv-i-a fly, pov-i-a maggot (Hesych.).— Lat. mus-ca. 
— ON. my.— ChSI. much-a museca, musica culex, 
Lith. musé fly. 

Bopp ‘G1,’ Pott i’. 85, Benf. ii, 43, Forstemann ‘Ztschr,’ ili. 47, 
Fick i°. 726, — The ChSI. form is for mus-a, which must be reckoned 
the primary form, whence pu-ia for pvo-ca and with another suffix 
mus-ca. We might trace the stem mus-a to rt. mus (Skt. mush) 
‘steal, ‘rob,’ so that the fly would be among insects, what the mouse 
was among mammals (No. 483). So Aufrecht ‘Ztschr.’ viii. 71. — 337 
ON. my from *mi-j4. OHG. muced, represented by the OS. muggjd 
[Eng. midge] probably does not belong here [but cp. Férstemann 
‘Geschichte des Deutschen Sprachstammes’ i. 54.] — The equivalent 
words Skt. mdksha-s ‘ fly,’ Zd. makshi ‘ midge,’ ‘ fly,’ I now omit here. 


481. wvA-n, pvdA-o-s mill, millstone, pvdA-w6-pd-s miller, 
pUdA-@ grind, pvA-al1, pudr-ddovT-Es, puA-lrat 
dentes molares, grinders. 

Lat. mol-o, mol-a, mol-dri-s, mol-i-tor, 6é-mol-u- 
mentu-m. 

Goth. mal-an a&d7Oewv, mal-v-ja-n ovvTpiBev, OHG. 
mul-i mill, mel-o meal, mul-ja-n erush. 

ChSl. mel-j-q@ (inf. ml-é-t7), Lith. mal-w (inf. mdl-t?) 
grind. 

Olr. melim molo, do-melat edunt, to-malt edere. 


Kuhn ‘ Zur iltesten Gesch. der indog. Volker’ p. 16, Benf. i. 496, 
Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 126, Pott W. ii. 1, 535.— The Greek v has here 
evidently been developed from a. It is important for the history of 
civilization that these words are common to all the European members 
of the family of languages, but to these alone. In Skt. we find at most 
the rare mal-ana-m ‘ rubbing. — Max Miiller ii. 317 assumes for the 
rt. mar the fundamental meaning rub, which he thinks established 
itself with only a slight modification in these words for ‘mill.’ He 
very acutely connects with this also pdp-va-ua (No. 458) and pardo-s 
”Apnos ‘ the toil and moil of Ares,’ while he reconciles the rt. mar ‘ die’ 
(No. 468) with this fundamental notion, according to the analogy of 
rt. gar (No. 130), by means of the idea ‘ to rub oneself out.’ — Bréal 
‘ Rivista’ 1874 (p. 454) explains é-molu-mentum as the ‘ gain by grind- 


408 BOOK It. 


ing” (Cp. vdaros, No. 432.) — The Irish compound do-, to-melim means 
‘to rub away,’ ‘destroy,’ ‘enjoy ;’ cp. ‘Beitr.’ vin. 445. Ir. mulenn 
‘pistrinum ’ is a borrowed word, and is derived from Lat. molendinum 
(Z?, 778). 

482. pdppo-s, pUpu-n€, puppn-dev ant. — Zend maoiri. — 
ON. maurr, Low Germ. miere [AS. and OE. mire, 
cp. pismire|.— ChS. mrav-ij pipyng. — Cymr. 
morion, Arm. merien formicae. 

Pott W. ii. 2, 202, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 327, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 
50. — There are in the main two views as to the origin of these words. 
The one advanced by Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 66, taken up again in a dif- 
ferent way by Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 15, connects them with Skt. vam-rd-s 
‘little ant,’ valmika-s ‘ant-hill’ Thus vam (No. 452) would be the 
root, and the insect would get its name from spirting out ant-juice. 
But this is opposed by the fact that in none of the other languages does 
the form correspond to this assumption. Legerlotz ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 382 
explains it otherwise. — Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ xii, 304 starts with for- 
mica, from which he arrives at the rt. frem=Skt. bhram with the 
fundamental idea of restless motion. Bnt even if pipyné for pupyné 
could have originated hence ‘ by assimilation, we have still to account 
for the form Bippyaé, Béppag (Hesych.); and the other languages agree 
still worse. -- Hence both attempts fail to solve the problem of supply- 
ing an etymon for all the names of the ant, which are closely related 
phonetically. We had therefore better leave the Skt. and the Latin 
entirely out of the question. In five languages the insect bears a name 
which can be readily traced back toa rt. mar, mur. Such a root, itis 

338 true, nowhere presents itself in a verb, but we may regard ‘to swarm’ 
as the meaning, and pup as related. Bipuné: pipynE=Bdpvapa: pap- 
vaya. dppcxa’ ppynka and dpptxas’ pvpyné (Hesych.) are probably both 
intended to explain the Lat. formica.— Doubts on the score of the 
Slavonic form are advanced by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ i. 132. — The 
Cymric has beside morionen also mywionyn, Corn. menvionen ‘ formica’ 
(Z?. 1076). 

483. pds mouse, muscle. —Skt. mush, miush-a-s, mish- 
a-ka-s, mush-ika-s rat, mouse. — Lat. mas, mus- 
culu-s, mus-cip-ula. — OHG. mts. — ChSlL myés-% 
mouse. 

Bopp ‘GI.’ Pott W. 1. 2, 448, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 126.— The rt. 
mush (mush-nda-mt) with the by-form mish is still extant in Skt. as 
a verb with the meaning ‘ steal,’ hence there can hardly be any doubt 
as to the explanation of the word mouse as ‘ thief’ (cp. No. 480). sh 
hke ChSl. £ has sprung from s. The transference of this animal’s 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 409 


name to parts of the body deserves notice: Gk. pds ‘ muscle,’ puov 
‘muscular part of the body,’ Skt. mush-kd-s ‘testicle,’ ‘pudendum 
muliebre’ (cp. picyxov' rd dvSpeiov Kal yuvatxeiov pdpiov Hesych. Fick 1°. 
723), Lat. mus-culu-s, OHG. mis ‘muscle,’ especially on the upper 
arm, ChSl. mys-ica Bpaxiwv (Miklos. ‘ Lex.’). — But what are we to say 
to cpis* 6 pis (Hesych.)? We find also cpi-s* pis, cuivOa ‘ house-mouse,’ 
Spwbeds. A rt. ome seems to be at the bottom of these (cp. opirn 
‘knife ’): fundamental idea ‘to gnaw.’ 


A84, popd-s (Att. popo-s) fool, pwp-ia folly, pwp-d-o 
stupefy, pwpaiv-» am foolish, simple. — Lat. 
moru-s, mor-io(n) fool, mdrari to play the fool, 
mor-Osu-s (2). 

The two derived words make it probable that Lat. mdru-s is no 
borrowed word. Pott’s reference to the rt. ma (W.i. 282) is less pro- 
bable than that suggested by Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 330 to the Ved. miaré-s, 
‘stupid, ‘purblind.’ We might also regard as related momar ‘ stultus 
apud Siculos’ Fest. p. 140. — According to Fick i*. 718 Skt. @ has 
originated from @ under the influence of the 7. 


485. duGpo-s rain, 6uBp-co-s rainy, duGp-é-o rain. — Skt. 
abhrd-m storm-cloud, clouds, dmb-u, dmbh-as water. 
— Lat. timber (st. tmbri). 


Bopp ‘GL,’ who is undoubtedly wrong in dividing abhra into ap 
(‘water’) and bhara (‘bearing’). Schweizer ‘Ztschr.’ 11. 66 more 
correctly (so Fick 1°. 492) groups together all the words here men- 
tioned, as coming under the common idea of water, and also reminds 
us of ddpd-s ‘foam,’ which had been compared with abhrd-m by 
Weber. Medials and aspirates vary in Skt. as in Greek. See on 
this point p. 528.— Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 386 holds Osc. anafriss to be 
identical with zmbri-bus. So Corssen i’?. 163. —From the rt. abh 
perhaps comes, as I have conjectured ‘Stud.’ 11. 440, following Benfey 
ii. 75, una, i.e. vy-ap-w (Dor. vago). Cp. No. 456. — OGall. ambe 
‘rivo’ (‘ Beitr.’ vi. 229), Olr. abann ‘stream’ with Lat. amnis are 
also akin: cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 340. 


486. wud-s crudus, crudelis, #po-rn-s rawness. — Skt. 
 @md-s, dma-s raw, uncooked, unripe, am-ld-s 
sour, acidity. — Lat. am-dru-s.— OHG. am-pher 

[ModG. Ampfer sorrel]. — Ir. 6m raw. 
Benf. ii. 89, ‘Ztschr.’ viii. 88, ‘Ind. lect. Kil. aest.’ 1856 p. viii., 
Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 341, Stokes ‘Ir. Gloss.’ 90.—- On the OHG. 
ampher ‘sorrel’ cp. Pictet i. 309, Kuhn ‘ Beitr.’ 11, 381, Skt. amld-s, 


339 


410 BOOK II. 


amli means also ‘ wood-sorrel,’ ‘ oxalis corniculata.’ The by-form 
ambla-s is noteworthy phonetically, for its 6 was the preliminary 
step to the OHG. ph. Pott W. 11. 2, 153. 

487. @uo-s shoulder, ®po-7Adrn shoulderblade. — Skt. 
dsa-s, dsa-m shoulder. — Lat. wm-e-ru-s. — Umbr. 
onse (uze) in umero. — Goth. amsa. 

Bopp ‘GL.,’ Pott iit, 290, Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 283. — The primitive 
form is amsa-s, whence Graeco-It. omso-s, Gk. &po-s, but besides 
this Hesych. mentions dp-é-cw' ®po-mAdra, a form in which e (as 
in the Lat. wm-e-ru-s for om-e-so-s) has developed between the two 
continuous sounds, as in nwm-e-ru-s, beside the Osc. proper name 
Niumsieis. Aecol. ér-oppa-cias = ér-wpa-dias cod. c Theocr. xxix. 29 
has retained the older py from po. Biicheler ‘ Populi Iguvini 
lustratio’ p. 16.— Umbr. onse Huschke, Savelsberg ‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 
111, Bugge xxii. 463, | Biicheler ‘Umbrica’ p. 89]. 


ie 


A Greek p corresponds in the following cases to an 
Indo-Germanic 7, and this is retained as a rule also in the 
other languages; but in some cases it has passed into J. 


488. Root dp adp-dp-i-cx-e fitted, dp-uevo-s fit, suiting, 
dp-np-a suit (ap-np-dr-es near to one another), 
dp-o-a, #p-ap-o-v fitted together, &p-6-po-v joint, 
limb, ap-rv-w fit together, prepare, adp-TU-s, ap- 
6-u40-s union, friendship, dp-1-6-4é6-s reckoning, 
series, number, v-#p-i-ro-s uncounted, ap-pd-s 
joint, shoulder, &p-r.0-s fit, exact, &p-7. just, ex- 
actly, ap7i-¢-w prepare, dp-i- proper, good (dp- 
ciwv, aploro-s), ap-€-cK-w please, ap-e-TH excel- 
lence, ép-e-7d-w be of use, serve, €pi-7p-ns trusted. 

Skt. rt. ar to hit upon anything, to attain, dra-m 
fit, fast, ard-s spoke of a wheel, ar-jd-s attached, 
faithful, tr-md-s arm. — Zd. rt. ar go, air-ya faith- 
ful, areta complete, ere-thé rectitude. 

Lat. ar-ma, ar-mu-s, ar-tu-s limb, arti-culu-s, ar-ti-re, 
ar-ta-re to fit in firmly, ar-tu-s narrow, ar-(ti)-s, 
arti-fex. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4ll 


Goth. ar-m-s, OHG. aram arm, Goth. li-thu-s limb. 340 

ChSlL. ra-me dos, Lith. ar-ti (adv.) near, arty-ma-s 
(adj.) near, drtin-ti bring nearer, OPruss. irmo 
arm. 

OlIr. dram gen. dirme numerus, dirmim numero, 
alt (n. pl. adit) junctura, do-rému enumero. 


Benf. i. 56, Pott W. ii. 1, 78. — Much light is thrown upon this 
widely ramifying root by the meanings given in the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ for 
Skt. ar-jd-s and rt. ar, whose part. perf. act. fem. Grushi, except as 
regards the varying reduplication, entirely corresponds to the Gk. 
dp-apvi-a ‘fitting.’ With the causative form ar-pajd-mi, which means 
‘fasten,’ ‘secure,’ are connected dpm-e-dar(0), dpm-e-Odvn ‘rope,’ ‘cord ;’ 
the aspirate here is in the same position as that of dp-pd-s and its 
numerous derivatives (dppot, dppd(w, dppovia), On further extensions 
(d-ap-7h, 6u-ap-TH, dp-ap-Té-@, Gu-npo-s, du-np-ev-@, “Op-dpto-s) ‘De nomine 
Homeri’ p. 11 sq.— By the side of Lat. ar-s is Skt. r-ti-s in its 
meaning ‘manner’ and ‘ way.’ — The meanings develope themselves 
simply from the idea ‘fit,’ which is readily taken transitively, and 
from which the notions of ‘close union,’ and also of ‘narrowness’ 
(Lat. ar-tu-s) and ‘straitened circumstances,’ ‘affliction’ (Goth. 
ar-m-s édeewds) are as little removed as the transferred notion 
of ‘suiting, ‘pleasing’ (Gefallens), which in German has been 
formed from the idea of coinciding (zusammenfallen) ; cp. convenit. 
In the Homeric dpoavres xara Oupdv A 136, evi peo Hpapev jw 8 
777 we can clearly see the transition. There is a good parallel to 
dpern, a8 far as meaning goes, in MHG. wuoge ‘ proper behaviour’ 
(Worner ‘Substantivorum Homeric. index’ p. 17). The positive of 
apetoy occurs in the Hom. voc. dpés (E 31), as Ixion recognized 
(Bekker ‘Hom. Bl.’ i, 195, Hartel ‘Ztschr. f. Osterr. Gymn.’ 
1871 p. 604).— Cp. also Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 452 and Leo Meyer 
‘Bemerkungen’ p. 45; the latter connects also “Ap-y-s, ép-e-s with Skt. 
dr-i-s ‘enemy,’ and the hostile meaning of the rt. ar ‘strike.’ 
This might be admitted, if we assumed that a Gk. ep with a special 
meaning was developed from the rt. ar. In any case ép-t-s is not to 
be separated from ¢p-¢-6-w, ép-e-6-if-w ‘ provoke,’ which remind us of 
Lat. wm-ri-to. — The fundamental meaning of this root can, however, 
hardly have been anything but that of ‘motion in the direction of 
something. In most of its applications this is regarded as ‘ successful,’ 
‘attaining its goal.’ Thus we may connect without violence also ap-é- 
aa, ap-a-cOau ‘ attain,’ which are generally referred as aorists to aipa, 
together with dp-o-s ‘ gain’ (Aesch. ‘ Suppl.’ 887) (cp. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ii. 460). If we remember that atpw almost always appears in 


341 


412 BOOK ll. 


Homer in the fuller form deipw, there is not the least probability 
that the st. dep (for dFep) should have been shortened to dp in kiddos 
dp-€-cOa. The present to these aorists is rather dp-vv-pac (cp. also 
pic-apvo-s). There is no reference whatever here to the notion of 
‘raising’ occurring in aipw. Hence itis only in this sense that we find 
the fut. dp-ota (Schneidewin ad ‘Soph. Aj.’ 75), as distinguished 
from ap (for dep) from aipw (Aesch. ‘Pers.’ 795).— With these 
meanings ép-i--o-s ‘day-labourer’ is at once seen to be connected, 
probably also ép-avo-s, the primary meaning of which seems to be ‘a 
collection of money.’ — Next to these comes a group of words which 
go back to the notion of ‘counting’ (‘putting together’): eixoow- 
npira X 349: cp. Rumpf in ‘ Fleckeisen’s Jahrb.’ 1866 p. 85, wnpiros 
thy Hes. ‘Opp.’ 511, dpi-6-p6-s, cp. OHG. vi-m [Eng. (mis-spelt) 
rhyme] ‘numerus,’ ‘series’ (Fick 1°. 737), with which goes ra-tio, 
ya-tu-s, Joh. Schmidt. ‘Voc.’ u. 461. It can hardly be doubted that 
the particle dpa (dp, pa) is derived from this root ; dpa as an inter- 
rogative has the greatest resemblance to the Lith. interrogative dr. 
—For the ‘splitting’ of the rt. ar into dp, ép, 6p see above p. 46. 
Hence results a relationship of this root with Nos. 490, 492, 500. 
Tt will be seen on p. 701 that gpxoua also belongs to it. — References 
for the Irish words are furnished by Z. 241, 265, 435. They 
contain the root-fornis ar, al, ra. 


489, apdy-vn, apdy-vyn-s, apayx-vo-s spider, apdyv-to-v 
spider's web. — Lat. ard-neu-s ard-nea spider, and 
spider's web, ardneu-m spider's web, ardneare. 


Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 56 (cp. Kuhn ii. 69) attempts an etymo- 
logy based upon the equivalent Skt. name wrna-ndbha-s, properly 
‘having wool on the navel:’ but this is very uncertain. Otherwise 
Max Miiller iv. 368. The true view has been taken by Walter 
‘Ztschr.’ xii. 377. He deduces a rt. ark ‘range one by another,’ 
‘spin, which we may regard as an expansion of ar. This shows 
itself, as I have proved ‘ Ztschr.’ xiii. 398, most clearly in dpx-v-s 
(by-form dpkv-o-v) ‘net,’ which is related to this root precisely as 
Goth. nati ‘net’ to OHG. nd-ja-n (‘sew’), and as ré-te, probably for 
sré-te to ser-o (No. 518), and also in dpx-dyn' 7d pappa, @ Tov oTnpova 
eykatamAékxovow ai Sua¢dpevat. Add, with A for p and an inserted vowel, 
ndax-drn (Hes. phexdrn) ‘spindle.’ Otherwise Brugman ‘ Stud.’ iv. 145. 
ap-d-x-vy shows the same vowel, but preserves the p. « has been 
aspirated under the influence of the »; cp. for this p. 502. Hence 
dpaxyy means ‘spinner. The Latin words are perhaps borrowed from 
the Greek: Corssen i*. 634 considers this certain. — Fick ii, 23 adds 
with hesitation the AS. rynge ‘ spider.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 413 


490. dpé-w plough, apo-r#p ploughman, épo-ro-s plough- 
ing, season for ploughing, dpo-rpo-v plough, 
dpouv-pa ploughed land, moAv-npo-s* moAvdpoupos 
(Hesych.). 

Lat. ar-G-re, ara-tor, ard-ti-o, ard-tru-m, arvu-s apo- 
olpos, arvu-m. 

Goth. ar-jan d&porpidyv, OHG. err-an arare [OE. ear], 
ar-t aratio, ON. ar aratio, ardhr aratrum. 

Lith. dr-ti, ChSl. or-a-ti plough, Lith. artéma-s 
ploughing, field, arkla-s (Lexica), ChSl. oralo, 
ralo plough. 

Cymr. aradyr, Ir. arathar aratrum, Corn. erv ager, 
Arem. irvi sulci (Z?. 131, 285, 831). 


Kuhn ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 351, Pott W. i. 293. —ar-7-tra-m ‘oar’ 
(No. 492) has nothing in common with dpo-rpo-y ‘ plough,’ except the 
root with the general notion of moving (No. 488). In its application 
to ploughing rt. ar (almost always retaining too its vowel a), is 
proper to all the European languages, as distinguished from the 
Oriental. Whether épa ‘earth’ (cp. Goth. air-tha), gpa-fe is con- 
nected with these words is doubtful. Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 54 ff., Pott ii’. 
179, Pictet 11. 78. — For Greek, with the exception perhaps of adpoess* 342 
dporptdcets (Hesych.), dpo as a derivative verbal-stem is the only form. 
Nothing can be said with certainty as to the origin of dpovpa. Misteli 
(¢ Ztschr.’ xvii. 178) holds that dpoupa is reduplicated and divides it into 
dp-op-Fa (cp. ax-wx-7), Fick 1°, 497 into dp-Fo-pa. Grassmann (‘ Wtb.’ 
265) compares Ved. urvdra ‘sown field,’ tracing it back to ar-va-ra. 
We should thus have in the East a trace of this root, but a doubtful 
one. — Beside ‘ arathar ab aratro’ we find also in Cormac’s glossary 
‘ar (‘work of the plough’) ab eo quod est aro’ (atrim). 


491. d&po-ny (st. dpoev), Ion. épo-nyv, Att. &ppnv mascu- 
line, dpo-ev-.xd-s of a masculine nature. — Skt. 
rsha-bha-s bull, Zd. arshan man, male. 


Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 308 following Benfey’s ‘Sanskrit Chresto- 
mathie, Glossar.’ p. 61, Fick 1°. 499. We may regard as the root 
of the words grouped together here ars, Skt. arsh ‘ flow,’ in the sense 
of ‘besprinkle;’ according to the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ indeed this is ‘ related 
to varsh, so that this explanation would ultimately come to the 
same thing as Benfey’s. Still I do not know what we should 
say to the relation of varsh to arsh. Who will contend that the 


414, BOOK II. 


oldest language could not have possessed two rts. ars and vars (cp. 
No. 497) synonymous but phonetically distinct ?— Sonne ‘Ztschr.’ x. 
103 derives the surname of Dionysos Eipadi-orn-s (Alc. fr. 90 éppadge- 
érn-s) from asabha-s (Skt. rsha-bhd-s), so that—as a further deriva- 
tive—it would mean ‘fertilizer.’ I do not attempt to determine 
whether arie(t)-s belongs here, mainly because of the fem. arna Paul. 
‘Epit.’ 20 and Lith. éryti-s ‘lamb :’ cp. Olr. rether ‘ aries.’ 


492. Root ép aud-jp-ns double-oared, adi-7p-ns rowing 
through the sea, revtnkévrt-opo-s fifty-oared ship, 
ép-é-7n-s, Um-np-€-Tyn-s Oarsman, €p-e-cia rowing, 
crew of rowers, €p-€-co-w row, €peT-0-s Oar. 

Skt. ar-t-tra-s (adj.) driving, ar-¢-tra-s (subst.) oar, 
ar-t-tra-m or dr-i-tra-m helm, ar-t-ta (st. aritar) 
oarsman. 

Lat. ra-ti-s, ré-mu-s, rém-ig-tu-m, tri-rém-i-s. 

ON., AS. dr, MHG. rie-me oar (Low G. reem), OHG. 
ruo-dar. 

Lith. tr-ti row (1 sing. pres. 77-i-w), ir-kla-s oar. 

OIr. imm-rera (perf.) gloss upon ‘solverat ’ (Z?. 448), 
ram (plur. rdme Z?. 16) oar. 


Kuhn ‘Ind. Studien’ i. 353, Pott W. 1. 294, Benf. 11. 305, who 
also adds to this group kvS-ep-vd-o and compares the first syllable 
with xvp8n; but xipB8y is too rare in the meaning ‘ boat’ — probably 
originally only poetical, like ‘ shell’ (No. 80) — to make this expla- 
nation plausible. There is an attempt at explanation in ‘Stud.’ iii. 
194. — By the side of the rt. av, Gk. ep, which underlies these words, 
there is also the metathesized ra, appearing most plainly in ra-ti-s. 
I have intentionally omitted from the words in -jpys quoted in the 
text rpi-jp-ns, for the ‘ three-decker,’ like 6:-fp-es ‘the second story,’ 
derives its name from rt. dp ‘fit.’ Schweizer (‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 353) is 

343 right in counting among the words of the cognate languages OHG. 
ruo-dar (uo from @). é¢pécow = éper-jo points to a noun-stem épera, 
as mupéoow to mupero (nom. muperd-s ‘ fever’); cp. Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 
335. We may probably add the town-names ’Eperpia, ’Epecod-s 
("Epecos). But also words which denote motion forwards on land, 
like Skt. rd-tha-s (Suff. tha, Lindner ‘ Altind. Nominalbildung ’ 85), 
Lith. rdt-a-s, Lat. rot-a,[Germ. Rad], Olr. roth ‘ wheel,’ cannot be 
separated ; especially as Skt. ar-i-tra-m denotes not only ‘rudder,’ 
but also, according to the ‘Pet. Dict.,’ ‘a part of a carriage,’ and 
as Oly. ara ‘auriga’ (gen. arad, st. arat-, Z?. 255) certainly also 
belongs here. But Lat. rot-a cannot be separated from ,of- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS, 415 


undu-s, the form of which, pointing as it does to a derived 
verbal-stem vot, I have explained in the ‘Symbola philolog. Bonn.’ 
1. 278. The ‘Pet. Dict.’ compares with i-np-é-rn-s Skt. ar-a-ti-s 
‘servant, ‘help.’ This meaning suits well enough the wider use of 
umnpern-s, but not the narrower ‘ oarsman,’ which the word with its 
derivatives certainly has. Hence ar-a-ti-s may have been derived 
directly from the fundamental notion of ‘going,’ ‘striving’ (cp. No. 
273), tmnpérn-s on Greek soil immediately from that of ‘ rowing.’ — 
On the difference between rts. ép and dp, st. apo, ep. No. 490. — Irish 
has only the root-form r@. Further authorities for the verb, which 
denotes ‘a voyage by sea,’ in ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 212. 


493. Root é€p, Fep Hom. elp-w say (€p-é-a, elpn-Ka, €pp7- 
Onv, pn-T6-s), py-Twp, Aeol. Bp%-rwp orator, 67-Tpa 
(lic Foérpa) decree, pj-ua word, p7-o1-s speech, 
eip7j-vn agreement, peace (*), 6n-cK-0-pévav’ NEeyo- 
pévov (Hes.). 
OPers. var announce, Zd. var teach (?). 
Lat. ver-bu-m, Umbr. verf-ale (‘formula’ Bréal, 
‘templum’ Biicheler). 
Goth. vatir-d word, anda-vaturd answer, ga-vawrd-t 
OMLALa. 
OPruss. wir-de word, Lith. vdr-da-s name. 
Fick 1°, 772, Corssen i. 171, Bezzenberger ‘ Beitr.’ i. 253. — On the 
F of the Greek forms see Ahrens ‘ Aeol. 34, 36, 226, Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xiii. 458, Knés 90 f. For etpyxa, eipnyn ‘ Greek Verb’ p. 360 f. Add also 
Cyprian «dfFpynrdcarv Deecke and Siegismund ‘Stud.’ vii. 247. — On 
the other hand the verbal forms which denote ‘asking,’ like épécOa, 
epeiopev (A 62), eparar, epevvar, epecivew are without any trace of a F and 
hence have nothing to do with this root (Knés 185). Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xx. 9, Fick 1°. 210 give conjectures as to the origin of these words. —- 
On eipnyy cp. Giese ‘Aeol. D.’ 187,— 6-ap-if-w ‘chat’ (dapic-ri-s, 
dapic-r-s, d-apo-s) may probably be regarded as a reduplicated form 
for Fa-Fap-i{w. Otherwise Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 337. — The comparison of 
Olr. briathar (acc. bréthir Z?. 244) ‘ verbum’ with Gk. Fpnrpa (Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ viii. 340) is uncertain, for Ir. @, ta points to an earlier az. 


494, épéB-.vO0-s, dpoBo-s chick-pea. — Lat. ervu-m, er- 
vilia. — OHG. araweiz, OS. erwet. 
Pott i4. 117, Benf. ii. 313, Hesych. AcBivOrorr epeBwOor. — Lat v = 


Gk. B as vicia Bixio-v,— On the termination Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ 244. 
— For the German words, which are possibly borrowed, Grimm ‘Gr.’ 344 


416 BOOK IL. 


ii, 222. — dp-axo-s, later dpay-os, ‘a kind of pulse,’ seems to be of 
kindred root. It does not follow from # épéBuOou N 588 (cp. #) amodéa Oar) 
that there was an initial F, as is assumed by Hehn® 190, misled by 
Legerlotz (‘ Ztschr.’ x. 380). Cp. No. 523 b. 
495. ’Epivi-s. — Skt. Saranju-s, saranju-s hasty, quick. 
Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 439 ff., where he points out some remarkable 
coincidences between the Arcadian legend of Demeter Erinys related 
by Pausan. vill. 25 and the Vedic legends of Saranjis. Max Miiller 
11. 482 agrees with this etymology, though in a different sense. For 
him ’Epwis is ‘the blush of dawn,’ while Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 121 
sees in it ‘ the storm-cloud.’ — The spir. lenis appears in the place of 
the aspirate as in the copulative d = 4, sa (No. 598). 1 points to an 
*Epevvu-s, “Epwvu-s. The spelling with one py is the better established, 
according to L. Dindorf’s note in Steph. ‘Thesaurus.’ No stress is 
to be laid on the es which once occurs in an inscription (C. I. ii. p. 
353), any more than on the isolated v (C. I. i. 916). — But we may 
notice the Macedonian form preserved by Hesych. ’Apdvriow* ’Epwior: 
Pott discusses this (‘Personennamen’ p. 107), reminding us of dpa 
‘curse.’ Cp. Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 200. 
496. [ép-os| Ion. efp-os, Ep-1o-v wool, ép-iv-eo-s, épeod-s 
woollen. 
Skt. ura in ura-bhra-s ram, i. e. wool-bearer, wra- 
na-s ram, Ura sheep, ur-za-m, Urnd wool. 
Lat. vell-us, vill-u-s, la-na (for vla-na). 
Goth. vulla wool, vullarei-s fuller. 
Lith. vil-na wool, vil-dni-s woollen, ChSl. vli-na 
wool. 
Cymr. gulan lana (Z?. 130). 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. ii. 1, 565, Benf. ii. 296, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 129. — 
The root is rightly taken to be the var ‘ cover,’ which is preserved in 
Skt. Hence Skt. *var-a, shortened into ur-a, *var-na shortened ur-na 
= fep-t-r(a) in ép-iv-eo-s. The initial digamma has disappeared in 
Greek without leaving a trace. The shortest substantive &p-os is 
merely hypothetical; for we actually find only ecip-os with Ionic 
lengthening (for *Fepos, *éFepos?), and compounds like ev-ep-os. As 
we have in Skt., Lith., and Slav. a form with a nasal suffix, it is 
natural to explain the double Z as originating in dm, not only in the Goth. 
vulla but also in the Lat. vellus, villus (cp. Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 327). Even 
in Greek there are not wanting forms in which the 7 has passed into 
A. The kinship of oddo-s ‘ curly ’ (otvAd-rn(r)-s, odAd-Opié) has long been 
recognized, But Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 318 attractively explains Aq-vos 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 417 


‘wool’ too from *FAq-vos, which is distinguished from the deduced *vel- 
nus (vellus) only by metathesis. Hence it appears to me the simplest 
course to explain /d-na too as *vld-na. In dd-x-vn ‘wool,’ ‘down’ 
(for FXa-x-vj) I see an expansion by x (cp. meA-i-x-vm), which was 
aspirated before »v. Add Ady-vo-s ‘sheep’s wool,’ Aay-vn-ets ‘ woolly,’ 
‘rough’ (previously No. 537). — To the words with the harder liquid 
seem to belong also Gk. apv-es ‘lambs,’ dpv-eid-s ‘ram,’ modv-ppnv ‘rich 
in sheep ;’ for the forms Bdp-tov' mpdBaror, Bap-txou' dpves (Hesych.) and 
the proper name fFdpywy on a Boeotian inscription (Clemm ‘ Stud.’ 
vill. 429) point to an initial labial. There are traces of this remaining 
in the Iliad too (Knés 56 f.), so that I. Bekker writes Fapyév. The 345 
double p in rodv-ppny arose, we must suppose, from Fp as in ¢pp67-6n-v, 
so that we must assume an old double form Fap-v, Fpa-v. The second 
form is preserved as pyyv in later authors, and in the derived pay-€ = 
dpvakis ‘sheepskin,’ ‘Pyvea. dpv-evd-s with the distinctive accent is a 
derivative like the adjective dpveios, but it has a decided analogue in 
the Skt. urndji-s ‘ram’ (= *varnd-ju-s). It is very hard to deter- 
mine whether the OHG. ram ‘ram,’ compared by Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 
i, 496, is related, because we must also take into consideration Lith. 
ér-yt-is ‘lamb’ and Lat. a-rie(t)-s with their initial vowels: and these 
have certainly nothing to do with this root and have been mentioned 
under No. 491. — With Cymr. gulan Stokes ‘Corm. Transl.’ p. 131 
identifies Ir. olann ‘ wool,’ but compares both words with Gk. Ady. 


497. €po-n (Hom. éépo-n, Cret. depa-a), Epo-n dew, épare-s 
dewy. — Skt. varsh-d-s, varsh-d-m rain, rt. varsh 

(vdrsh-a-ti) rain. — Ol. frass shower of rain. 
Bopp ‘GI.,’ Pott W. 1. 2, 468, Benf. i. 327.—The vowel prefixed 
in the epic form, as in that preserved in Hesych. (depoav’ rv dpdcov 
Kp7res) points clearly enough to F (Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 51).— With regard to 
the meaning it is noteworthy that Hesych. quotes on épon also voria, 
opixdn, As from rt. ars comes apo-nv (No. 491), so from rt. vars 
come Skt. vfsh-a-s ‘bull, Lat. verr-e-s ‘ boar,’ as ‘ besprinkler,’ and 

Skt. v7sh-an ‘man, ‘ male,’ ‘ stallion.’ 


497 b. épvw, Feptw for F(e)pvc-w draw, elpt-pevat, épuvc- 
Ta{w, puotd¢w frequentative. — pu-76-s drawn 
towards, pu-7THp rein. — éppewv, Féppew to with- 
draw, to be gone, azrd-ep-ce tore away, a7-a-vp-do 
take away, d7rovpas. 

Lat. verrere (OLat. vorrere) drag through, draw 
away, Sweep, verri-culu-m net, ver-su-s furrow. 
ON. vorr furrow, OHG. werran distrahere. 
Ee 


418 BOOK It. 


Bugge ‘Ztschr.’ xx. 26, Fick i. 776, Van. 904, 906 ff.—I have 
discussed these words thoroughly in ‘Stud.’ vi. 266 ff.—The various 
words linked together by the meaning ‘draw,’ go back to the rt. 
Fep: from this comes fep-v, by expansion with s fep-s, and with 
anaptyxis Fep-u-s. The traces of the F are certain: cp. Hom. dmofépoete, 
with a long second syllable, Aeol. Bpv-rnp=purnp (Ahrens 34), Beppns* 
Sparérns Hesych. (Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 46), évédde Féppov © 239, Knés 100.— 
ciovoba ‘ defend,’ ‘ protect,’ is unconnected. 


498. épwd.d6-s (pw@d16-s) heron. — Lat. ardea. 

Pott i2, 213, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 56, Benf. ii. 6.— Probably 
there is some connexion or other with the word which Hesych. s. v. 
dpayos explains by épwdiws. Instead of this form, which violates the 
alphabetical order, some conjecture dpapos.— We can hardly suppose 
that the Lat. word is borrowed, but must rather assume a common 
primitive form ardja, so that » would have to be taken as a vowel 
developed out of p and lengthened under the influence of contiguous 

346 sounds, as Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ il. 417 takes the of kwd-w-vd-s be- 
side the Lith. kdl-na-s. Cp. Fick 11°. 25.—Herodian indeed taught 
that the true spelling was ép@di6s (rept povnpous AcEcws 1. p. 116 Lentz), 
but this perhaps was only to favour his derivation from potge. 

499. evpt-s wide, evpv-v-w widen, evp-os width, breadth. 
— Skt. urti-s (fem. urv-t) wide (comp. vdr-Yas), 
uru-gajd-m wide room, uru-kdkshdas (kakshas eye) 
wide-seeing, udr-as breadth, space. Zd. uru 
vouru wide. 

Bopp ‘GL.,’ Pott i’. 221, Benf. i. 79.—An initial metathesis has 
taken place. etpuv : varu = radpo-s : parvu-s, vetpo-v : nervu-s. 

500. Root dp d8p-vu-p1, ép-iv-w, 6po-0-tv-a (fut. dpcw, aor. 
@p-op-o-v) excite, dp-wp-a am excited, raised, 
@p-To raised himself, ép-co (ép-ceo) raise thyself, 
6p-€-ovro they broke up, dp-od-m hurl myself, 
av-opov-® spring up, ovp-o-y room, dicK-ovpa 
A (pl.) casts of a quoit. 

Skt. rt. ar (r-20-mi, aor. dr-a-m 8 sing. aor. m. ar-ta 
=p-To) raise myself, struggle upwards, excite, 
zr to raise oneself, excite. Zd. rt. 77 raise oneself, 
rise (of stars). 

Lat. or-i-o-r, or-tu-s, or-tgo. 

Benf. i. 53, Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ ii. 396, 459, Pott W. ii. 1, 3.—The in- 
dividual meanings of the Skt. words were demonstrated first in the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 419 


‘Pet. Dict.’ The 7 in ir has come, as is often the case, from a. The 
root is the same as that discussed under Nos. 488, 490, 491, but 
even before the separation of the European nations from each other, 
this parted off into three forms dp, ép, 6p with different vowels, and 
essentially different meanings. In this case we can see with unusual 
clearness the closer community of the Greeks and Italians on the one 
side, and the Indians and Iranians on the other.—On the ov of 
op-ov-w ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 77.—Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 327 proves that this 
root occurs also with the meaning ‘shoot forth,’ ‘ grow,’ so ortiés Lucr, 
1. 212, and connects with it, probably with justice, Norweg. runne, 
rune with the fully equivalent é-vos (cp. dj-vos, tx-vos, €6-vos) which 
I previously placed under 523b. We-may add ON. renna ‘shoot 
forth,’ ‘grow quickly.’ Isolated « by o as in épya under No. 502. 


501. Root 6p, Fop emi dp-o-vra: look after (3 sing. plpf. 
émrt 6p-dp-eL), ovp-o-s guard, watchman, é7r/f-ovp-o-s 
overlooker, dpouvp-é6-s (mpé-opo-s) guard, ppoupa 
watch, guard, ripa-opo-s (Tiwwpé-s) guardian of 
honour, avenger, mvAa-wpd-s, Oupwpd-s door- 
keeper, @pa care, protection, dpd-w (€-apd-ka, 
€@pw-v) see, dpa-ua look, a-dpa-ro-s invisible. 

Lat. ver-e-o-r, ver-i-tu-s, veré-cundu-s, re-ver-e-0-r. 

Goth. vars visan to be careful, ware, OHG. war 
intentus, giwar aware, war-a intuitio, consideratio, 
cura, MHG. war nemen eines dinges, to beware 
of a thing, OS. war-d-n animadvertere, observare, 
Goth. datra-var-d-s @vpwpés door-ward, OHG. 347 
wartén videre, exspectare, cavere, war-t, war-to 
custos. 

Pott W. u. 1, 582, Benf. ii. 297, Diefenbach ‘Goth. Wtb.’ i. 201 
210, Doderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 2274, where the explanation here given of émt 
& dvépes €cOdoi spovra (E 104), dporro (y 471), dpmper (¥ 112), which is 
supported by an old interpretation, and is defended by Lobeck 
against Buttmann ‘A. Gr.’ i1. 260, is confirmed by sound arguments. 
—For the peculiarities of the augment cp.‘Greek Verb’ p. 81. The 
existence of the fF is further proved by Bépor dpOadpoi (Hesych. 
Suid.), by mvdaupds, mudevpds = mudwpds (Hesych.) and by the vowels 
in composition, though on the other hand we find even in © 178 
ovdevoowpos. The length of the o in the Homeric zvAd-wpo-s is seen 
to arise from a transposition of quantity, if we compare Dor. rpa- 
opo-s (Ep. tizq-opo-s): hence tywpds is ‘ honour-ward.’—Darmesteter 
‘Mém.’ ii. 369 has endeavoured to trace the rt. dp back to sar Zd, 

E@ 2 


420 BOOK II. 


har ‘ guard, ‘protect’ (and also ser-vd-re): but this is open to objec- 
tion, inasmuch as particular Greek forms, as this scholar admits, can 
only be explained from var.—For the meaning see Introduction 
p: 101.—The root will recur in other uses on p. 587. — It is tempt- 
ing to place here. OCymr. guarat ‘scena,’ guaroiow ‘theatra’ (Z?. 
127: cp. Baumeister ‘Kelt. Br.’ 114), but im modern Cymric 
gwareu means ‘play,’ ‘sport. <A rt. vel ‘see’ is retained in Cymr. 
gwelet, Arem. guelet ‘videre’ (inf. Z?. 535), Olr. fili ‘poeta’ (gen. 
filed, st. velet-, Z?. 255). May we add the ‘femina fatidica Valeda, 
nationis Bructerae,’ Tac. ‘ Hist.’ iv. 61 2 
502. 6p-u47 rush, impulse, dpudé-w press on, rush, a¢- 
opHy, Opun-THp.o-y incitement, starting-point of 
a movement. 

Skt. rt. sar (sdr-d-mi, st-sar-mi) run, flow, in com- 
pounds also to attack, fall upon, press forward, 
sdr-ma-s flow (subst.), sar-ds liquid, brook, sar-dt 
river. — Zd. har go. 

Pott W. i. 1, 658, Benf. i. 60, Fick 1°. 796.—Kuhn in Haupt’s 
‘Ztschr.’ vi. p. 131 compares épun with the Indic Sardémd, and Sdara- 
méjd-s the son of the latter with the Gk. ‘Eppeias (‘Eppjj-s), ascribing 
to both opyn and sardéma the meaning ‘storm’ (‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 27). 
Hence Kuhn and Welcker (‘Gotterl.’ i. 342) are fundamentally 
agreed about the etymon, though they take it in very different ways, 
while Max Miiller ‘Lect.’ ii. 468 regards “Eppeias as ‘the dawn-son.’ 
[Cp. also Cox ‘Aryan Mythology’ ii. 231]. I have still some 
difficulties with regard to the names of the Gods because of the 
Greek appellativa épyaovr, épynveds, épunvedo, which resemble ‘Eppeias in 
sound, but are still unexplained. I cannot think of deriving them 
simply from the name of the God (Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 46); at any rate 
I should not be able to quote any name of a God used thus. The 
latest discussion of this is Benfey’s ‘Hermes, Minos, Tartaros,’ Gott. 
1877.—On the other hand épya in épy’ éduvdav (A 117) must certainly 
be added here. The word has evidently the meaning of the later agopyn 
and may be translated by ‘source.’ The isolated e as in epvos under 
No. 500. 


503. dpvi-s (st. dpvi, dpvi8, Dor. dpvix), épve-o-v bird. — 
Goth. ara (gen. arins), OHG. aro, arn eagle [ Aar]. 
— ChSl. ort-li, Lith. eréli-s (also eri-s) eagle. — 

Com. er, Cymr. erydd, eryr aquila (Z?, 1074). 
Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 1021, Fick i%. 494, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 341.— 
Benfey’s objection (i. 332) that d-opv-o-s proves the existence of Ff, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.21 


has no weight, for this late word in its isolation can no more prove 
the initial labial than d-omro-s, d-opyo-s prove one in the case of the 
roots there concerned.—The @ as against the Dor. x will occupy us 
on p. 495. — Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ v. 66 conjectures as the rt. 6p (No. 500), 
so that the bird would be denoted as the ‘upstriving.— For the names 
of the eagle Pictet i. 456. Perhaps also the name of the Thracian 
king ”Opodo-s or “Odopo-s, transmitted to the father of Thucydides, 
belongs here. The form of it reminds us most of the Slavonic words. 
504. dp-os (Ion. ovpos) mountain, ‘Opéc-rn-s, dpel-r7-s, 
dpe-to-s (Ion. ovpevo-s) dwelling in the mountains, 
opet-vo-s mountainous, dwelling in the mountains, 
dp-ev-s (ovp-ev-s) mule. — pi-o-y height, pro- 
montory. 
Skt. varsh-mdn (m.), vdrsh-man (n.) height, vdrsh- 
yas the upper. 
Lat. verr-iica steep height, wart. 
ChSI1. vrtich-t, Lith. virsz-as peak, height. 

My previous comparison with Skt. giri-s, Ch.Sl. gora ‘mountain’ 
is untenable, because the loss of an initial y cannot be proved.—I 
now place épos among a set of words, which are grouped together by 
Fick 1°. 216, 775, but not connected with épos. - Froéhde ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii, 
267 hesitates about connecting épos with these words.—We may 
assume a rt. var ‘heighten,’ ‘raise. It underlies the verb d-fetp-w 
(contr. aipo), which I previously placed wrongly under No.518. The 
a is prothetic. To this belong Ion. per-njopo-s (Att. per-ewpo-s), map- 
nopo-s, svv-nopo-s, modes dwpor (penduli) p 89, jepé-0-0-vra B 448, amnwpor 
dot, perhaps also dnp (st. dfep) and certainly aiwpa ‘hanging basket’ 
(cp. Brugman ‘ Stud.’ vii. 345), perhaps for Fac-Fopa (cp. pat-pa-w). The 
F has been lost before the o of ovpos, dpos, just as in otp-avd-s=Skt. 
Varuna-s (No. 509). Homer. Ion. odpos (épecx or otpeor Sappho ‘Fr,’ 
94, Theocr., Callim. dpea) is to dpos as odpavd-s is to the Aeol. forms 
Spavo-s, dpavo-s (also Doric). The F is retained as 8 in Bopéas, Boppas, 
‘Ymep-Bdpe-voe (Tramontana, Ultramontant). Bugge (Bezzenb. ‘ Beitr,’ 
ili. 112 gives the same account of épos, and with verrica puts the AS. 
wearr * callus,’ ‘nodus.’— To these words belong further Phryg. épov, 
vo (Achilles Tatius on Arati Phaenomena, according to de Lagarde 
‘Gesammelte Abhandl.’ p. 288), to which Hiibschmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 
34, 48 adds Armen. ver, 7 veroy ‘above.’ — The rt. var appears expanded 
as vars, to which belong the Indian, Latin, and Slavo-Lettic words 
- quoted in the text. From this comes fi-o-v (epi piov, adda pio Hom.) 
for Fpwc-o-v, with that 2, which so easily comes from an a under the 
influence of a neighbouring 7, e. g. in pita beside rdd-iw (Joh. Schmidt 


422 BOOK II. 


‘Voc.’ ii. 330). We can hardly prove, I think, that dp-os too came from 
Fopo-os. — bp-06-s (El. Bopady' oravpdv, Lacon. ”Aprepes Bwpbia), which 
agrees with the Sanskrit @dh-vd-s even in its application to the 
loud voice, also perhaps belongs here, so that it is due to an ex- 
pansion with 6=Skt. dh. Frohde ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 251 wishes 
to connect also Bpt-apd-s, Bpi-ymvo-s with these words, and with ON. 
rist ‘giant’ (Germ. Riese), OS. wriselik ‘ gigantic;’ also (iii. 19 ff.) 
épaobupn, which we may translate ‘ High-gate.’ 
505. dppo-s os coccygis, rump, ovpa tail, ovpaxo-s, ovp- 
faxo-s the extreme end.— OHG. ars anus. — 
Ir. err tail, end. 

Pott i4. 123, Benf. i. 103, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 341.—dppo-s for 
dpoo-s, ovpa with compensatory lengthening.— Perhaps Lat. urr- 
uncu-m ‘quod in infima spica’ Varro ‘R. R. i. 48, 2 is related. — 
Otherwise Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 30, Leo Meyer xxiii. 67, Fick 1°. 203. 

506. dpé-s (6666-5) late odpd-s whey. — Skt. sara-s or 
sdrd-s curdled milk. — Lat. seru-m whey. — Lith. 
stiri-s large cheese, ChSl. syri rupos. 

Pott i’. 123, Benf. ii. 59.—The spir. lenis instead of the aspirate, 
which we should have expected in place of s, as in éreds (No. 208), 
énds = sucu-s.— As épo-s is the oldest form, 6fp0s, which is perhaps 
expanded by the use of another suffix (Fo?), cannot be any obstacle 
to this comparison, as Pictet ii. 30 and Fick i°. 796 consider it. The 
Slavo-Lettic words are kept distinct by Joh. Schmidt ii. 281. 


507. dptvé.— Skt. vartaka-s, vartakd, vartaki, vartika 
quail. 

Benf. i. 334, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 53, Kuhn ib. 68. The Skt. 
form urtika quoted by the last is not given in the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ — A F 
in Greek is established by yoprvé dprvé Hesych. The genitive 
éprux-os quoted by grammarians (cp. L. Dindorf in ‘Steph. Thes.’ s.v.) 
contains the earlier x, which was afterwards weakened into y. The 
suffix is therefore the % common in Greek and Latin in the case of 
the names of birds. The root in Skt. is held to be vart=Lat. ver- 
tere, whence also vdrt-ula-s ‘rotundus.’ Pictet 1. 495 explains this 
from the custom of these species of birds to roll round on the ground. 

508. 6-puy-6-s, @pvy-7, ®pvy-wa a roaring, howling. — 
Lat. rug-i-o, rugi-tu-s. — ChSl. ryk-nq-ti dptv_ecbar. 

Pott i’. 213, Benf. 11. 6.— Both compare also words which point 
to an Indo-Germanic &, like the Slavonic verb and OHG. roh-é-n 
‘rugire.’ According to this a weakening from & to g would be prob- 
able (cp. pux-d-o-yac and Lat. mug-i-o).—The verb dpvye or dpuyave 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. | 423 


quoted by Benfey and also by Pictet ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 183 is nowhere 
to be found. On the other hand pvgew ‘bellow’ is probably akin 
(‘Greek Verb’ p. 225), and proves that the o is prothetic (Van. 813). 
dpvypd-s in Hesych. is probably rightly explained by Bpvypyds instead 
of the traditional Bpvydpevos.  dpvy-padd-s* Wédos, ktimos, dpuypddes” 
Aépv8e look like mere corruptions of the better established dpupaydd-s. 
Cp. apt-o (No. 523.) 

S08b. 6-ptcow (original stem ux) dig, scrape, dpvé, 
dpuyé graver, chisel, dpuxryp digger, spade, d:dpuvé 
ditch, conduit, shaft. — Lat. cor-rigu-s, ar-riig-ia 
conduit, shaft, runc-d-re weed, pluck up, ruga 
wrinkle (2). 

Fick i’. 744, ‘Greek Verb,’ p. 222.— The o is prothetic : on the varia- 
tion of the consonant at the end of the root see p. 529.— Fick adds also 
Skt. dunk ‘pluck,’ ‘tear away,’ and compares with Lat. riga the equi- 
valent Lith. rauka. Vaniéek compares Czech. ryé ‘ digger,’ ryé ‘spade.’ 


509. ovpavé-s (Aeol. dpavo-s, dpavo-s) heaven, firmament, 350 
palate, ovpav-io-s heavenly, ovpavi-wv-es caelites, 
— Skt. Vdéruna-s God of water, ‘all-embracing’ 
(Pet. Dict.). 
Benf. 1. 324 (otherwise ii. 298), Pott W. 11. 1, 554. — Kuhn ‘Ztschr, 
1. 457 ‘Vdéruna-s in its oldest form equivalent to Gk. Otpavd-s later 
‘God of the waters, which are called ‘the wives of Varuna.’ — 
Schweizer iii. 387 against Bopp, who derives otpavd-s from Skt. varsh 
‘rain’ (No. 496).— The root ‘of this old word is var ‘cover.’ For the 
Aeolic forms see Ahr. 93, 101. 


510. odpo-y urine, ovp-é-m pass urine (aor. éovpyce), 


PAS 
ovpavn, ovpyOpa, ovpyn-ya. — Skt. vari water. 
Zd. vdra rain, vdrefti it rains. — Lat. wr-tna, 


arin-d-ri dive, urind-tor diver. — ON. wr (n.) 
fine rain, yra to rain fine, AS. vdr sea. 


Pott W. i. 1, 596, Benf. i. 324, Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 29.—For 
the peculiarities of the augment ‘Greek Verb’ p. 80.— Bopp ‘Gl’ 
refers here, as Varro ‘L. Lat.’ v. 126 did before him, wrna and also 
ur-ceu-s, but the former is more likely to be connected with wr-o 
(rt. ws) as being a vessel of burnt earth, the latter probably has 
its origin in the Gk. dpxn (Lob. ‘ Paral.’ p. 34). For the meaning of 
the words here compared the Lat. winavi is especially instructive, 
inasmuch as it has developed quite independently from the idea of 
water.—Italian proper names which presumably belong here, are dis- 


424, BOOK II. 


cussed by Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 238. — Olr. fuéal (Z’. 949) ‘urina,’ which 
Stokes ‘ Ir. Gl.’ 222 was inclined to compare with Skt. vari, owes its 
da evidently to compensatory lengthening, and probably comes from 
rt. vag ‘to be moist,’ ‘to wet,’ Fick i°. 764 (cp. typds). 


511. pdrv-s turnip (later pddu-s), pad-avo-s cabbage, 
pagh-avi-s radish. — Lat. rdp-a, rap-u-m turnip. 
— OHG. ruoba wild turnip. — ChSl. répa, Lith. 
ropé turnip. 

Pott i?. 109, Benf. i. 73. — We might suppose borrowing both in 
Latin and in German. Still this does not seem probable. If we 
start with the form in m and assume aspiration in Greek, all is easily 
explained. For this and for many dialectic forms W. Roscher 
‘Studien’ i. 2, 74. — Cp. No. 513. 


512. pdyi-s spine (by-form pdy-«-rTpo-v, pay-la), payxt-aio-s, 
paxi-rn-s spinal. — OHG. hrucki, ON. hrygg-r 
back (?). 

Pott ii. 205, Benf. 11. 316, Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 307 ‘a Gk. 6 may ex- 
ceptionally correspond to an OHG.hr:’ this is, however, probably the 
case only when « has been lost in the Greek, and I do not know a 
second instance of the kind (cp. Adé and calx No. 534). The origin 
of the word and its relation to pax-o-s ‘ thorn-hedge’ (cp. spina dorst), 
payos ‘rag,’ etc., is still very obscure, hence I regard this comparison 
as very uncertain.—To the OHG. hrucki belongs Ir. crocenn ‘ tergus,’ 
‘ pellis,’ ‘ Beitr.’ vil. 437. 

513. Root fen Fpen péz- incline (of the balance), pom-7 
inclination, turning of the scale, momentum, 
avti-ppoto-s of equal weight, adudi-ppem-ns in- 
clining to both sides (amb-ig-uu-s), pém-ado-v stick 
(for throwing), cudgel, club, pém-rpo-v knocker, 
clapper, bird-trap, paz-i-s rod, kada-dpow shep- 
herd’s staff. 

Lat. rep-en(t)s, rep-ente, repent-inu-s. 
Lith. virp-iw quake, tremble, waver. 

Doderlein ‘Syn. und Etym.’ vi. s. v. repente, ‘ Gloss.’ 2320 suggests 
the extremely probable comparison with rep-ente, which we must 
regard as a locative adverb formed from the participial stem (cp. éOed- 
ovti); hence it means por} ru, momento. — The only trace of the F is 
retained in the v of kxada-ipoy: as to the first part of this word 
Déderlein ‘ G1.’ 2104 offers some conjectures ; but it is very probable 
that «ddo-s ‘cord’ underlies it, and that so the word means ‘ cord- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 425 


stick.’ This stick is used by shepherds for throwing, like the fdr-ado-v 
[ep. ¥ 845f., and Paley on Theocr. iv. 49]. Hence the notion of a 
quivering motion through the air runs through all these words, and 
this is just as suitable to the wavering and trembling of the tongue 
in the balance. — pami-s ‘rod’ seems — like the swinging ring used for 
knocking at a door, and the quivering tambourine, both porrpov — to 
be also named from swinging, and, as the word is quoted in Hesych. 
also with the meaning pdrv-s, so perhaps all the words treated under 
No. 511 belong to this stem. — But pa8-S0-s resembles still more the 
Lith. virba-s ‘twig,’ ‘rod,’ ChS]. vriib-a ‘ salix’ (cp. also verb-er, virg-a). 
— Benf. ii. 310 offers all kinds of other combinations. — fir-ro, pir-n, 
which, in spite of the neglect of the ‘ shifting of mutes,’ can hardly be 
separated from Goth. vairp-a |cp. mold-warp] is distinguished from 
the other forms by its ¢, though not more, as Delbriick ‘ Stud.’ i. 2, 
132 (cp. Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc,’ 11. 333) proves, than xpi from hord-eu-m. 
Cp. for pirrw and épeirw Pott 11. 257, Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 176, xv. 5, 
Grassmann xil. 108, Fick xix. 264.—It is better to suppose that péuB-o 
‘turn, pouBo-s ‘turning,’ etc. have come from rt. Fper by a nasal 
strengthening and a consequent softening of the w into 8B. Pott 1’. 260 
holds peuB-w to be equivalent to Goth. hvairb-a ‘ verto’ — whence the 
German ‘ Wirb-el, —Froéhde ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ i. 250 to the Skt. varg 
‘press,’ so that it would only be an accidental variant of Fépyw (No. 
142).—Cp. Walter ‘Ztschr.’ xii. 388 f., Gustay Meyer ‘Stud.’ vi. 251. 
514. pty-os cold, piy-vov colder, worse, piy-nAd-s, prye- 
davé-s frosty, awful, pry-é-m (Eppiya) shudder, 
pty6-w freeze. 

Lat. frig-us, frig-idu-s, frig-e-0, frig-e-sc-o. 

Pott i’. 258, Benf. 11. 110. — It is easier to assert than to prove a 
connexion with rig-e-0, rig-or, rig-idu-s; the entirely similar forma- 
tion of derivatives where the quantity and the initial letter are alike 
different, would of itself oppose the assumption that frig and rig are 
originally identical. Cp. Corssen i?. 451. — Gk. pty has lost an initial 
labial. So the question must remain open whether this ¢pty may be 
perhaps only weakened from pik (fpicoe, ppig, ppixn). — All further 
comparisons are extremely uncertain. The OHG. frios-an ‘freeze,’ in 
particular, agrees neither in its initial nor in its final letter. — Lat. 
frig-é-re ‘roast’ belongs to No. 162. 

515. pi¢a (Lesb. Bpicda) root. — Lat. rdd-ix. — Goth. 
vaurt-s root (wort), OHG. wurz-d, wurz-ala. — 

Cymr. gwreidd-yn, Corn. grueit-en radix. 
Pott i’. 250, who has rightly seen that neither Skt. rdh nor vrdh 


4.26 BOOK II. 


suit these words, which rather point toa rt. vard, vrad, Corssen 17. 403; 
Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 315, 352.— For Aeol. Bpicda = Fpid-1a Ahr. 
‘ Aeol.’ 34 sq. There are suggested for comparison also Aeol. Bpad- 
wé-s (padiwés), pod-avd-s with the by-forms fad-adé-s, pod-add-s (2 576), 
‘slim,’ ‘slender,’ pd8-apvo-s, pad-apo-s, pdd-apvo-s, opdd-apvo-s, pad-t& 
‘ shoot,’ ‘twig,’ the somewhat varying meanings of which have their 
analogy in the Teutonic languages, where wurz, wirz mean also vege- 
table, ‘wort.’ The rt. vrad which is thus deduced Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xii. 367 finds in the ‘ Nirukta’ v. 15 f. as a by-form of mrad ‘to be 
pliant, ‘yielding.’ Cp. Benfey ‘Gott. Nachr.’ 1875 p. 33. In the 
‘Pet. Dict.’ vrad is translated by ‘grow soft’ (avradanta dévas Rigv.). 
pod-d-v ‘rose,’ Aeol. Bpodor is according to Pott ‘E. F.’ 11. 817 and Hehn* 
217, 527 of Iranic origin (Armen. vard), Lat. rosa certainly from podéa, 
podia, like Clausus from Claudius. [Cp. Max Miiller in the ‘ Academy’ 
for 1874, p. 488, 576 ].— Perhaps Diintzer is right in connecting with 
this root the difficult wepi-ppyndys, which in x 84 sepippydns de tparegy 
kdnmece 18 explained by mepipepyns, while in. Hippocrates it means 
‘wavering. We may therefore translate it in the Homeric passage 
by ‘reeling.’ Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ 156 connected the word with fades rd 
apdorepace eykekAiuevov, i.e. ‘ waving evenly. rddix and pifa must have 
meant originally ‘twig, whence the transition to ‘ root’ is easy. It is 
doubtful whether rad-iu-s and ra-mu-s (which may easily have lost a 
consonant) are related. But rid-i-s ‘ staff’ certainly belongs to the 
rt. rudh (also Skt. ruh) ‘grow,’ for it corresponds to AS. réd-a, OHG. 
ruot-a, which require an ante-Teutonic dh. Add Zd. rud ‘ grow,’ 
Goth. liud-an with 1, ChSl. rodz-t-i parére, ete. — Cp. Lobeck ‘ Elem.’ 
i. 85. The weakening of @ into ¢ is as in ifw, mrve-o. — Cymr. 
guwreiddyn (Z?. 1077), if we strike off the suffix -yn (Z?. 295), gives 
the primitive form *vrad. 


516. pir (st. pi) hurdle-work, mat, pi7-i-(6)-s fan, pr7- 
i¢-w fan. — Lat. scirp-u-s rush, scirp-eu-s, scirp- 
are. — OHG. sciluf rush. 

Pott i. 140, who compares also ypizo-s, ypipo-s as ‘rush-mat.— Gk. 
pur is thus for oxptr, whence by metathesis came scirp-u-s, and with ¢ 
for r, the regular shifting of mutes and a subsidiary vowel, the 
German word. — Cp. Benf. 1. 212. — The notion of a ipavrddes gurov, 
which the scholiast on Aristeph. ‘Pax’ 699 gives to the word pi, 
comes out clearly in the three languages.—Ev-pimo-s no doubt belongs 
here. — pir: scirp = rép: serp.— Otherwise Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 
332. 


517. Root pu, cpu pé-w (petv-cw, €-ppn-v) flow, pé-os, 
po-o-s, ped-pa flood, po-7, pu-ci-s, ped-ai-s flow- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 427 


ing, pu-76-s, pevo-7d-s flowing, pé-e-Apo-v bed 
of a stream, stream, pv-a€ stream. of fire, pv-pn 
Swing, press, pu-0-6-s5 time (in music). 

Skt. rt. sru (srdv-d-mi) flow, srav-a-s outflow, srav- 
ant-i, srd-t-as stream. 

Lat. Ru-mo (older name of the Tiber), ru-men udder, 

— umin-a, 

OHG. strou-m stream. 

Lith. srav-j-u flow, bleed, srov-é a streaming. 
ChSl s-t-ru-ja fluentum, o-s-t-rov-% insula (liter- 
ally audi-pu-ro-s). 

Olr. sruth a flow, flood, di-sruthigud derivatio, 
srtwaim (dat. plur. for srwamann-aib) stream. 


Bopp ‘GI1., Pott W. 1. 1370, ‘Personennamen’ 400, Benf. ii. 8, 
Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 130, 136. — After Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 27 had already 
discussed the ¢, which the Slavo-Teutonie words — but also 37pv-pov 
—add to the forms of the other languages, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 
277 and now even Kuhn himself xiv. 223 confidently assume sfrw as 
the root. Kuhn lays especial weight on the Zend form thru ‘ flow’ (by 
the side of ¢gru ‘ go’), thraota (masc.) ‘stream.’ It does not seem to 
me probable that the common combination of sounds sér, if originally 
occurring, would become weakened into sr, which is nowhere a 
favourite : while on the other hand from an original sr str might very 
easily have come from the desire for greater ease of pronunciation. 
Pott W. i. 1373 quotes analogies, e. g. Czech. s-t-itb-r0=ChSI. sreb-ro 
‘silver.’ In no case, however, can we, I think, make use of the aspir- 
ation of the ¢ to th in this thru —an aspiration confined to the Zend, 
and to be explained by the special phonetic laws of this language — 
to assume a sthru for other languages, and to arrive from this, as 
Kuhn does, even at the Lat. flu. For flu cp. No. 412 d.— The Latin 
representatives of this root are discussed by Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ x. 18, 
‘Beitr.’ 427, 117. 85, 1012. To those quoted above, he adds Roma for 
Rou-ma= rpipn, ‘stream-town’ (but see Ritsch] ‘Rh. Mus.’ xxiv. 17), 
Romulu-s, Re-ate, for Rev-ate. — From Greek probably the Homeric 
pw-o-pat also belongs here (cp. Ev-p#-ras), which is related to péo 
phonetically, as théw to mhéo. The meaning ‘press on’ (A 50), ‘move 
with force’ can be easily reconciled with that of ‘streaming’ (cp. rt. 
plu No. 369). Skt. sru-ti-s, which means not only ‘outflow’ but also 
‘way,’ ‘road, points to a further use of the root. With regard to 
popun, povyyp, which strongly remind us of rdbur, I am now doubtful. 
poun is not seldom contrasted with ioxi-s, e.g. in Plato ‘Sympos.’ 


353 


354 


428 BOOK TI. 


190 b, and approximates so closely to pvuy that it is natural to take it 
as ‘force of movement.’ — But that pv-6-pd-s (cp. Ba-6-p6-s, ora-6-pd-s) 
was first noticed by the Greeks from listening to the sea, I feel quite 
certain. — épon, épwéo in their twofold meaning (cp. Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ 
xxii. 375) I altogether omit. — Joh. Schmidt ‘Voce.’ il. 281 conjectures 
an identity of root between sru and sar (Skt. sér-a-tz) ‘run,’ ‘ flow,’ 
and arrives at pd6o0-s, pobciv, though here, it must be admitted, the 
notion of noise comes into prominence, while poder ‘ nose,’ like ndsu-s 
(No. 443), got its name rather from flowing. — Authorities for the 
Trish words in Z?. 239, 991, O’Dav. ‘Gl.’ p. 115. 


518. Root cep (Ep, ép) werp-& rope, vep-i-s' (waTHp Hesych., 
ép-o-s necklace, dpya-66-s, dpu-vé fishing line, 
ép-wa ear-ring, elp-w (i-ep-e, €-ep-pévo-s) fasten, 
bind, eép-yé-s fastening, eip-ep-o-s bondage. 

Skt. sar-at yarn, thread. 

Lat. ser-o range, fasten, ser-a, re-serd-re, ser-tu-m, 
ser-ié-s, sor-(ti)-s. 

ON. sér-vi necklace. 

Lith. seri-s thread, cobbler’s waxed thread (?). 


Fick u*. 263 ; cp. Bugge ‘Ztschr.’ xx. 32.—The rt. cep, Indo-Germanic 
sar ‘bind,’ ‘tie,’ clearly occurs in Greek, and that in three forms, 
which Lobeck ‘ Rhem.’ 136 sq. following old grammarians also holds 
to be related. For ép-ya Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’i. 111 [p. 300 ‘ E. T.’].—6-ap 
‘wife’ (Hes. dop-es) is explained by Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 262 from the 
copulative 6 and root dp ‘join.’ But so the hiatus is not accounted for. 
If we divide it into 6-cap the word becomes quite a parallel to cw- 
nopo-s and con-jux. (Cp. Lobeck ‘ El. i. 74.) I cannot believe that 
cap and soror (Skt. svdsar) have anything in common. — Lobeck ‘ El.’ 
i. 176 refers here also the dma€ cipyyévor eip-ep-os (6 529) explained by 
Apollonius in his Lexicon by SovAeia. — ser-a is explained, not so 
much from the equivalent cecpd, which is later, as from the Homeric 
custom of moving the bolt to and fro with a thong (a 442). sor-t-és ‘a 
serendo, because they were usually strung together by a thread. ré-te 
probably for své-te with metathesis as in rép-o compared with serp-o, 
in (t)la-tu-s by the side of twl-7. Cp. on No. 489. — But even sar is 
perhaps not the full form of the root. — For the forms jetpe, eeppévos 
which point to an initial consonant see ‘Greek Verb’ p. 81. Ebel 
‘Ztschr.’ iy. 165, 171, hence deduces a rt. svar, from which in par- 
ticular the o, retained in ceipd, is well explained. On the other 
hand, I now place deipw and all that goes with it, with the funda- 
mental notion of ‘lifting,’ ‘raising’ under No. 504.—The Lith. sver- 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS, 429 


ju ‘weigh,’ svar-a-s ‘weight,’ ‘pound’, etc. I prefer to omit entirely.— 
We are reminded of the Lat. sero, consero, series, by the OIr. glosses: 
caith bed srethi gl. on ‘acus substernendum’ (Z?. 182), bid comsrithi gl. 
on ‘cum his manus conserenda est’ (Z?, 480): sreth ‘series,’ ‘ordo,’ 
com-sreth ‘constructio’ (Z’. 871, 992). Stokes ‘Beitr.’ viii. 308 is in- 
clined to place these words under No. 227 (rt. star), but it is not 
proved that an original initial st is replaced by s in Irish. The 
question can only be whether the Irish words belong to a rt. sar 
with the meaning ‘ bind,’ ‘ fasten.’ 


519. cip-vyé pipe, shepherd’s flute, cvpi¢-w pipe, cuply- 
p6-s, oUply-pa piping. — Skt. rt. svar (svdr-d-m?t) 
sound, resound, sing, sydr-a-s or svar-d-s sound, 
note, vowel. — Lat. su-sur-ru-s, ab-sur-du-s. — 
ChSl. svir-a-ti, svir-i-ti ‘avddeiv, ovpirrev, svir- 
élt cipty§. 

Bopp ‘G1. s. v. svr, Pott W. ii. 1, 721, Benf. i. 460. — The con- 
nexion of ab-sur-du-s (cp. absonus and Cic. ‘De Divin.’ ili. 41) was 
proved by me more fully ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 268. — The form *rupicdw has no 
support. Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ p. 65 rejects it on MS. authority as hyper- 
Doric. Cp. also Meineke ad Theocr. ed. tertia p. 17.—Cp. Corssen 
‘Beitr.’ 99, i?. 488 and No. 388. 


520. Upa€ (st. vpdx). — Lat. sdrex (st. sorec) shrew-mouse. 
Benf. i. 461, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 303.— Benf. conjectures that the 
word is to be referred to the rt. svar mentioned under No. 519, and 
hence that the animal was named from its cry, which among the 
Romans was thought worthy of particular attention (Plin. ‘N. H.’ii. 41). 
So Pictet i. 413. 


521. wap (modern Greek wWap-év.). — Lat. stwr-nu-s. — 
OHG. star-a (fem.) starling, MHG. star (masc.), 
AS. stear-n. — Bohem. skor-ec starling. 


Pott 117. 297, Benf. i. 677, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 48, Kuhn iv. 34, 
For the initial letter see p. 704.— Hesych. has preserved a form with 
oT, d-otpa-hd-v" 6 Yrapds bad OGetraday, for with Lobeck ‘ Prolegg.’ 93 we 
may regard yapés as equivalent to wap, and the connexion of this 
with stwr-nu-s even Lobeck declares to be ‘non admodum incredibile.’ 

_Cp. Siegismund ‘ Stud.’ v. 153. If we consider the Slavonic form, it 
becomes probable that sk was the original commencement of the word. 
Cp. No. 106, Pictet 1. 482. On the other hand Fick i’. 146 com- 
pares ap with Latin pdru-s ‘tit-mouse,’ Joh. Schmidt.‘ Voc.’ ii. 457 
with OHG., sprdé (Germ. Sprehe) ‘ starling.’ 


430 BOOK II. 


522. apa time of year, time, season, @po-s year, @pa-cr 
at the right time, wpa-io-s (cp. @plos, wplKd-s, 
@pipo-s) timely, seasonable, d¢-wpo-s untimely, 
ém-épa late summer. — Zd. ydre (neut.) year. — 
Goth. jér éros, OHG. jar. — Bohem. jaro spring, 
jar, je spring-corn (Vanitek). 


Pott W.i. 1040, Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 25, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 269, Diefenb. 
‘Wb.’ i. 120. — Benfey’s objections to this grouping (i. 329, 11. 297) 
have no weight, if we start from the meaning ‘spring,’ ‘ blooming 
season of the year, which is faintly discernible in Greek, and actually 
present in Slavonic; for from this the notion of year (‘ sixteen sum- 
mers’) may easily be deduced, just as ChSl. Ito ‘ year,’ according to 
Mikl. ‘Lex.,’ (where the identity with Lenz, Lent is denied), means both 
‘summer ’ and ‘ year. — This would not prevent us even from tracing 
it back to the rt. ja ‘ go,’ ‘come,’ for the spring might be regarded 
especially as the ‘coming,’ the ‘stirring’ of the season. We may re- 
member ‘ timely,’ Germ. ‘zeitig.” In Greek this narrower meaning 1s 
the more prominent ; but the more general meaning meets us not only 
in po-s (a@po-ypapa ‘ annalists,’ the well established name of the oldest 
historians) but certainly also in the Hom. évyéwpos (e. g.r 179), which 
Apollonius in his Lex. explains by évvaerjs, a meaning which suits most 
passages. — Very differently Savelsberg ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 384 ff., where épa 
is brought into comparison with gap (No. 589). The view stated there 
rests, however, on the false assumption that the form dwpo-s presumes 
F, but 7 may just as well have dropped out. We may admit that the 
origin of d7-pa (é7- perhaps belonging to dricw, dmobev, but in an 
inscription ‘Omwpis [? Laconian] Frinkel ‘Archaeol. Ztg.’ 1876 p. 
28: cp. Spiers ‘De Alcmanis dialecto, ‘Stud.’ x. 345) is not yet 
entirely cleared up, but, as to the absence of the aspirate, we may 
compare dyz-edo-s (No. 527). Savelsberg explains é-epa (cp. Oadr-wpn) 
from the rt. ém=men (on-1d-a, téoow) as the ‘ cooking time,’ but I cannot 
see the likelihood of this. — Pott acutely breaks up the Lat. hornu-s 
into ho-jor-nu-s (biga = bi-jug-a), so that, excluding the appended 

356 nasal suffix, it would quite correspond to the MHG. hiwre. I do not of 
course by any means consider the pronominal stem ho identical with 
that which occurs in the German words. However who can say whether 
hornu-s is not ho-ver-nu-s? Cp. Corssen ‘Nachtr.’ 298, 1". 308.— Pictet 
(ii. 606) compares épa with the Skt. vara-s ‘ time,’ ‘moment,’ in com- 
position ‘-times,’ and completely separates both from the words meaning 
‘year.’ This seems to me improbable, inasmuch as the Greek words 
may well be shown to agree both in meaning and phonetically with 
the former.—Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii, 60 ff. adds nothing fresh. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 431 


523. @pv-w howl, roar, @pv-9-ué6-s roaring, dpv-e-rau 
vrAakret (Hesych.), dpv-y~ayd6-s din, noise. — Skt. 
rt. ru (rdu-mt) roar, howl, vi-ru howl, ery, 
rdv-a-s roaring, sound. — Lat. ru-mor, ruim-i-to 
(Naev.) rdvi-s, rau-cu-s. — AS. ryan, ryn sound, 
roar. — ChSl. rev-q@ inf. rju-ti puxdobat, optvecOat. 


Pott W.i. 1256, Bopp ‘G1,’ Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 130, Benf. ii. 5, Corssen 
i’. 360, Fick i®. 742. — Cp. No. 508. Here as there an initial vowel 
has been added. aé-mor is formed like claé-mor. 


A 


A Greek 2 corresponds in the following cases to an / 
in the kindred languages, which is sometimes represented 
by an.r. 


523 b. Root ad Hom. dy-ad-ro-s insatiable, é\-co-s grove, 

"AX-TI-S. 

Lat. al-o, al-u-mnu-s, al-i-mentu-m, al-tu-s, co-al-e- 
sc-e-re, ad-, sub-ol-e-sc-o0, prole-s, ele-mentu-m. 

Goth. al-an, al-jan bring up, alith-s oirevrés, us- 
alth-an-s ypaédéns, OHG. alt old. 

Oly. no-t-ail alit te (Z?. 480), altram nutritio 
(Zen 771), 

A root surviving only in the European languages, with the funda- 
mental notion ‘ grow,’ transitively taken, ‘make to grow,’ ‘ nourish.’ 
In all three languages these meanings clearly present themselves. 
dv-ad=ro-s is certainly taken aright (Lobeck ‘ Rhem.’ 74) as avavEnros, 
dxépeoros. Diintzer’s notion (‘Ztschr.’ xiii, 2) of taking Béckew jv 
yaotep avadroy (p 228) as ‘unsalted’ will not find much assent. ddcos 
is like dpoea" NetpGves (Hesych.) from the rt. apd, like @apoos, dos : ”AX- 
z-is the sacred grove at Olympia is formed by the suffix -7:, — In Latin 
we find all three vowels, but so occurring, that the transitive meaning 
attaches itself exclusively to the form a/. It is not needful to prove 
that al-tu-s is essentially the same as ad-ul-tu-s, and that it has 
arisen from the idea of growth, like the German gross ‘ great’ from 
the root surviving in the English grow, while the German al¢ ‘ old’ 
has found another closely related meaning. Trendelenburg, however 
(‘Elementa Log. Aristot.’ ed. quinta 1862 p. 50), is certainly right in 357 
adding elementu-m. So Corssen ‘Beitr.’ 129, ‘Nachtr.’ 280. The 


432 BOOK II. 


e corresponds to the o of ol-esco, just as in vel-t-m, velle by the side of 
vol-o, bene by bonus, helus by olus. The meaning ‘ germ,’ shared also by 
inerementum, which is of quite similar origin (e.g. Ov. ‘ Met.’ ii. 102 
‘vipereos dentes, populi incrementa futuri’) [cp. Munro in ‘Journal of 
Cl. and Sacr. Philology’ iv. 292 ff. commenting upon Verg. ‘ Ecl.’ iv. 
49] suits excellently the entire usage of the word, as Tr. illustrates — 
further by the similar use of semina. Otherwise Leo Meyer ‘ Bezzenb. 
Beitr.’ ii. 86 ff. Fick ‘ Ztschr.” xxii. 384 wishes to deduce a form 
*hele-mentum, and to connect it with the rt. ghal ‘sprout’ (No. 197). 
av-6 (No. 303) and. aA-6 have been derived from rt. dd by expansion. 
In ddd-aly-@, ddd-nox-o the latter shows the two main meanings of the 
root unaltered. — Cp. No. 494. Pott W. ii. 1, 123. 


524. ddro-s (Cypr. aido-s) another, dAA-74Ao-vs one an- 
other, @AAd but, addXo-7o-s of another kind, a@A- 
Adoo-w change, exchange, a@dd-rTpio-s strange. 

Lat. ali-u-s (OLat. ali-s, ali-d), ali-bi, ali-qui-s, 
ali-énu-s, al-ter (st. al-tero). — Ose. allo alia (nom. 
s. fem.). 

Goth. ali-s dddos, alja (conj.) beside, alar else- 
where, OHG. ali-lanti, eli-lente foreigner, foreign 
country ; Goth. alja-thré add\ayxo-Gev, OHG. alles, 
elles (conj.) else, otherwise. 

Olt. aile (st. alia) alius, araile, alaile alius, ailigid 
mutat, ailithre peregrinatio, Cymr. arall alius. 


Cp. eo. No. 427, from which stem we felt compelled to distinguish 
this. — Diefenbach ‘ Wtb.’ i. 38. — The distinction is especially sup- 
ported by the fact that both in Greek and in Gothic both stems (an 
and al) occur side by side. Cp. Schleicher ‘Comp.?’ 225 [‘E. TY’ 
115], Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 295, Fick i°. 501. — Cypr. athov=a)\Xov Deecke 
and Siegismund ‘Stud.’ vii. 253. Cp. Armen. ail (Hiibschmann 
‘Ztschr.’ xxiii. 33) and the Irish form. — The reduplicated add-nAo-v-s, 
like Skt. anjonja (No. 426), has a noteworthy dissimilation in the 
second member. A comparative suffix occurs not only in al-ter, but 
also in dddé-rp-wo-s, which, as the Lesb. dAdd-rep-po-s shows (Ahrens 
‘“Aeol.’ 55), is derived from a st. dddo-repo. Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 365 
prefers to assume in the suffix a derivation from the Skt. adverbial 
suffix tra—anjd-tra ‘alibi’—but it can hardly be denied that this 
suffix is also akin to that of the comparative. On the wide ramifi- 
cation of these suffixes cp. Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ 111. 242 ff. — adAdoow 
goes back to a stem dddaxo, which is developed from dAdo just as Skt. 
anja-ké from anja, ‘Ind. lect. Kil. aest.’ 1857 p. viii, —Ir. ailigim 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 433 


(Z?, 437) is formed like Gk. d\ddoow; cp. Z*. 795: araile, st. aralia. 
With Cymr. arail cp. the Irish all ‘aliud.’ From aillthre ‘pere- 
grinatio’ is derived azlithrech ‘ Romipeta,’ i.e. ‘pilgrim’ (Z?. 782). 


525. adomrn€g (st. drAw7-ex). — Lith. lépé fox, lapi-ka-s 
young fox (Nesselm.). 


Pott i. 208 compares Skt. lépacd-s, lopaka-s ‘jackal,’ ‘fox. 
But Skt. 6 is not Gk. , and the preservation of such a com- 
pound is the less probable in that neither of the two stems can be 
proved to exist in Greek. We rely upon the evident agreement, 
which even extends (Schleicher ‘ Lit.’ ii. 286) to the quantity of the 
vowel in the stem-syllable.— Hesych. gives ddwzo-s' dAwmexwdns, 
mavodpyos SopokAjjs and drwrd 7 dd@mné, though the latter is suspected 
and does not occur in its place (M. Schmidt p. 136). Hence ex is a 
hypocoristic termination, and ddomné (vulpe-cula) is in itself parallel to 
the Lith. diminutive. Cp. pipp-n€ and puipyo-s No. 482. It would 
not be possible to identify it with vulpe-s without assuming a loss of 
the v in Gk. and Lith., and in no way could we identify it with Goth. 
fathd, in spite of Forstemann ‘Ztschr.’ i. 498.—d prefixed as in 
d-heip-w. — ddon-jx-wv Anan, fr. 5, 5 (Bergk’® p. 787). 


526. yAuki-s sweet (by-form yAuk-epé-s), yAuKv-T7(T)-s 
sweetness, yAedk-os must, d-yAevk-7s bitter. — 
Lat. dulci-s, dulc-édo, dulce-sc-o. 


If these words go together, g must be earlier than d, for Skt. 
gul-ja-s ‘ sweetness,’ which Benfey ii. 137 compares, as well as the 
more remote Lith. gardu-s ‘of pleasant taste,’ and refers to a root 
akin to glu-tire, closely approximates. — Can dulci-s have come from 
gulci-s by dissimilation, as tenebrae from rt. tam, mihi from mibho 
by the side of tb 1 The assumed Sevdkos for yAedxos has no authority. 
— Otherwise Fick i’. 617. 


527. Root Fed, Fad. — €Av-@ wind, curve, e/Av-@ iAd@ roll, 
wrap round, «i/Av-ua, €Av-Tpo-v cover, €iA-€6-5 
twisting of intestines (ileus volvulus), tr-vy§, tr- 
tyy-o-s whirling, dizziness, ‘AAd-s cord, Hom. 
6d o0l-T poxo-s (6Aoi-Tpoxo-s) rolling stone, 6A-po-s 
mortar, ovAai (ovAoyvTat) bruised barley, aré-w 
grind, d\«v-po-v, &decap meal, ddre-70-s grinding, 
ade-TpiB-avo-s pestle, "AXevddat, ddo-d- thresh, 
ado-7, &ddo-s threshing-floor. 

Skt. var-a-s circle, ir-mit-s (for var-mi-s) wave, fold, 
Ff 


434 BOOK II. 


rt. val to turn here and there, val-aja-s eirclet, 
ring. . 

Lat. volv-o, voli-ti-m, voli-td-re, voli-men, vol-va, 
vol-u-ta. 

Goth. valv-j-an (at-valujan mpockvdivdey), OHG. 
wellan roll, wulluh involucrum, OHG. wulsta 
corona, labium, OHG. wella unda. 

Lith. vél-ti to full, roll, vdlio-ti, ChSl. val-2-tz 
volvere, ChSl. vla-ja-ti fluctibus agitari, vlti-na, 
Lith. vil-ni-s wave. 

Olr. fulumain volubilis (Z?. 777). 


One of the most widely ramifying Greek roots, and at the same 
time a most difficult one, inasmuch as a number of forms present 
themselves which to some extent admit of comparison. The difficulty 
here, as often, lies in the proper division. Buttmann ‘ Lexil.’ ii. 141 ff. 
[430 ‘E. T.’] was the first to separate these words correctly from those 
which, like <iAw, ddjvar (No. 660) mean ‘to press,’ while in those here 
grouped together a curvilinear movement appears with the three modi- 
fications of ‘ winding,’ ‘rolling,’ and ‘grinding.’ The last modification 

359 is to a certain extent linked to the second by the notion of ‘ fulling,’ 
and this again approximates to ‘threshing.’ — From the rt. Fed we 
have the further expansion é&u« with a « (é\g, Aicow). In this de- 
rivative stem the most decided traces of the initial diagamma show 
themselves (Kniés 77 f.), though these are not quite wanting even in 
ciAvw (€ 479 odkeow Fetkvpévoe Spyovs). Thus the ec in eiAcocoyr is satis- 
factorily defended againt Ebel ‘ Ztschr. iv. 168. With the forms in 
a is connected dduwdéo ‘roll’ (fut. dd\icw). — A number of words with 
the meaning of ‘grind’ remind us much of No. 481. But as an 
initial » is not usually either simply dropped or changed into Ff, the 
two stems must be kept distinct. The word padevpo-v = arevpo-v, for 
which we have the authority of Hesych. and other grammarians, is 
in its form so like the latter, that we can hardly regard it possible 
that there should happen to be so similar a form in the case of 
different stems: and we must explain the » from the F once present 
in Fddevpo-v (cp. p. 591).— With trew in the meaning ‘to turn,’ 
‘to wind’ (intrans.), Lobeck ‘De metaphora et metonymia’ p. 6 
connects ad-dl-o, ad-ul-o-r, which denoted originally the ‘ wagging 
of the tail’ and ‘fawning’ of brutes. — Skt. wl-ukha-la-m ‘mor- 
tar’ reminds us of édpos, but the latter part of the word is unex- 
plained. Pott’s (i. 224) comparison of é\v-rpo-y with Skt. var- 
a-tra-m ‘upper clothing’ (rt. var ‘tegere’) has much plausibility ; but 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.35 


while in Greek, Latin, Teutonic, and Lithuanian the notion of ‘ wrap- 
ping up,’ which is easily derived from that of ‘rolling,’ ‘turning,’ is 
clearly to be seen, this is not the case in Skt. It is the same with 
ail-va-m ‘the integument which surrounds the womb,’ itself evidently 
identical with vol-va (cp. val-volae ‘pods’), but far removed from 
volvere.— Cp. also Benf. ii. 299, Lottner ‘ Ztschr.’ vii. 190, Fick 1°. 
212. It is worth noticing Pott’s (i. 120) explanation of dyum-ed-o-s 
from dui and Fed, hence ‘the clasping (with tendrils), especially as 
€Awvo-s occurs in the Alexandrian writers for ‘ tendril,’ ‘twig.’ — The 
final letter present in éAv, volv, Goth. valv, is, as Buttmann saw, @ 
shortened reduplication ; the same fF appears in the second o of ddooi- 
tpoxo-s as in that of dAo-d-w. In the same way we explained the 8 of 
pdBo-s No. 409 and of depBw No. 411, the m of mép-m-n No. 356. 
Corssen, who wrongly denies this phenomenon (cp. Lat. ste-ti for 
ste-st-z), is compelled to explain the v of volvo as a mutilated suffix.— 
Cp. Brugman ‘Stud.’ vii. 333. —Ir. fillim ‘tardo, ‘lento,’ ‘flecto’ 
(Z?. 435, 983, cp. also in-ru-fill ‘implicuit’ Z’. 877), which Stokes 
‘Beitr.’ vill. 342 compares with Lat. volvo, might rather be akin 
to Goth. valtjan ‘to turn,’ for 77 not uncommonly comes in Irish from 
ld. — On the Slav. words see Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 68. 


528. Zdravo-v oil, édala (Att. édda) olive. — Lat. oleu-m, 
olwva. — Goth. alév (n.) €dAaov, alév-i fatrguni 
Mount of Olives, OHG. oli. — Lith. aléju-s, ChSI. 
jelejy, oléj7 oil. — OCymr. oleu oleum, Olt. ola- 
chrann olive-tree (Z?. 57). 


With Benfey ii. 120, Diefenbach ‘ Wtb.’ i. 36, Hehn* 513, I now 
regard the words in all other languages as borrowed from édaia; 
oliva is to édraia as Achivi to Ayal; initial o for e as in elogium= 
édeyeiov ‘ Ber. der k. s. Ges. d. W.’ 1864 (histor. phil. Cl.) p. 5, Fleck- 
eisen ‘Jahrb. 1866 p. 3ff. We ought perhaps to consider as the 
root of ¢daov (with Pott i*. 208) the rt. dé ‘ liquefacere’ to be men- 
tioned under No. 541. In Greek the prefixing of a vowel is justified ; 
it would not be so in the other languages. This is the main reason 
for my present view. 


529. éd-a-gho-s stag, eAAO-s (€AAS-s) young stag. — Lith. 
él-ni-s elk, ChSl. jel-ent stag. — Cymr. elain cerva, 
Olz. elit capreolus (Z?. 805). 


Benfey ii. 9, who compares also Skt. rshja-s. But in the ‘ Pet. 
Dict.’ #¢ja-s is explained to be the older form, and the meaning ‘ an- 
telope-buck’ is given to the word. We should be thus brought to 
a rt, ark, which reminds us rather of No, 5. But the Greek, Keltic, 

Ff 2 


436 BOOK Ili. 


and Slavo-Lith. names agree unmistakeably, for the ChSl. y, as in 
countless instances, has grown out of the spiritus lenis. Apollonius 
‘Lex. and other grammarians write éAdd-s with spir. len. Perhaps it 
is for éd-vo-s and go corresponds almost exactly to the Slavo-Lith. 
form. Pictet i. 438 regards ar as the root, in the sense of ‘hurry,’ 
‘drive ;’ and with this he connects also ¢Aatyw. Fick i°. 500 adds Lat. 
al-a-cer and OHG. tljan ‘hurry.’ Cp. p. 551, No. 661. The suffix 
of Zda-do-s is the same as in épi-o-s ‘buck’ and Skt. rsha-bhd-s (cp. 
on No. 491), vrsha-bhd-s ‘bull.’ Cp. Jahn’s ‘Jahrb.’ 69 p. 95.— 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vil. 342. 


530. €dos (FéAos) low ground, “Edos, Edéa, "HAt-s. — 
Lat. Vel-iae (?), Velitrae, valli-s. — ON. voll-r 
plain. 


The F has a good deal of authority for it in the case of the town 
in Lower Italy Velia, which in Herodotus i. 167 is called ‘YeAn 
(Strabo vi. p. 252). Servius ad ‘Aen.’ vi. 639, Dionys. Halic. 
‘Arch,’ i, 20 derive the name of the Roman Velia from Fedos. But 
dos does not properly mean ‘ marsh’ at all, but according to Suidas 
divrov dSdoos, according to the ‘Et. Gud.’ éypds cai dacds téros, that 1s, 
‘low ground,’ ‘meadow-land:’ in Y 221 horses feed in the €dos, but 
nobody drives horses into a marsh. So too E. Curtius ‘ Pelopon- 
nesos’ 11. 288 explains the Laconian “Edos.— From the same root 
comes the name fFadi-s, which quite corresponds to the Lat. valli-s; 
hence Fadjioc=’HXeto (Ahr, ‘ Aeol.’ 226); thus "HAs means ‘ Sunken 
Land,’ ‘Hol(low)land’ (E. Curtius ‘ Peloponn.’ ii. 97). Are the length 
of the vowel in Greek, and the doubled 7 in Latin to be explained from 
a sufix vi, so that val-li-s would be for val-vi-s? So also Corssen 
‘Beitr.’ 321.— The Lat. Véla-bru-m cannot belong here because of 
its é, but Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 260 finds the clearest analogue of the 
Gk. Fédos in the Volscian Veles-tro-m which we find on the tabula 
Veliterna (Mommsen ‘ Unterital. D.’ 320) as the gen. plur. of the 
name of the inhabitants of Velletri, which ‘lies on the northern edge 
of the Pontine marshes.’ Voretzsch ‘ De Inscript. Cret.’ p. 5 is per- 
haps right in adding the Cretan Bodoévriot, 


531. #Ao-s nail, knob, €$-nAo-s provided with nails, éd- 
nro-@ nail fast. — Lat. vallu-s stake, tooth of 
a comb. 


Ahr. ‘Aeol.’ 58.—fF may be discovered plainly from the form 
yaddo-s recorded by Hesych.—the AA of which makes the agreement 
with vallu-s still more clear,—and from the Hom. dpyvpé-ndo-s.— 
Other explanations in Pott i’, 223.— Vossius ‘Et, 535 regards 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 437 


vallu-s as a diminutive of the adjective varu-s ‘ bandy-legged’ (cp. on 
No. 81). To me the difference of meaning does not seem great 
enough to separate fAo-s from vallu-s. vallu-m is probably only a 
collective from vallu-s, just as the Gk. xdp-aé denotes both. — Pictet 361 
compares various Sanskrit forms from the rt. var, for instance d-vara- 
na-m, which, among other meanings, has that of ‘bolt.’ These words 
must have derived their name from the notion of ‘ protecting.’ Simi- 
larly Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 320, cp. 1%, 459. 


532. Root ad (Aac) Ad-w (Dor. AB Afs AF, 3 pl. AGvTz) 
wish, Aj-ua, Af-o.-s will, AL-Aa-i-o-uar desire, 
Ae-Ain-par desire, strive, \fa-v mightily, very. 

Skt. rt. lash (lésh-G-mi, lésh-jad-mi) desire, las (lés- 
d-mt) glitter, play, /d-las-a-s desirous. 

Lat. las-c-ivu-s. 

Goth. lus-tu-s émiOupia, lus-td-n emiOupety. 

ChSl. las-k-a-ti adulari, las-ka adulatio, laska-vit 
blandus. 


Pott W. ii. 2, 459, Bopp ‘GI.’ s.v. Zash and fas, Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ i. 
268, Benf. ii. 136 f.; Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ ii. 118 excludes the Slavonic 
words, because we cannot find in them originally any trace of ‘ desire.’ 
— The rt. Jas has lost its before vowels in Greek (cp. yedo No. 131). 
For 6 and the other Doric forms Ahrens ‘Dor.’ 348. t-Aa-i-o-pae 
for Xi-hac-jo-~ar, where the 7 denotes the present stem, reduplicated 
like Skt. dd-las-a-s; Xe-Ain-par perhaps to avoid labdacism from 
Ae-Ai-An-pat, SO Atay (Ain-v) for Au-Aa-v. The o seems to have been pre- 
served in Ado-rn' mépyvn Hesych., with which Adoravpo-s = kivados (Lob. 
‘Proleg.’ 259) is certainly related (suffix vara?), also probably Aac- 
6-n ‘ludibrium’ (émt yéAwre kal Ado6y Herod. vi. 67): further accord- 
ing to Benfey Aai-s, Aad-payo-s (Hesych. dyayos), dai (emt alaxpoupyias 
Hesych.) and other words seem to be related: we may probably add 
also dd-pd-s ‘lickerish’ (greedy), Aa-prvpd-s (cp. Aadpd-s Hesych.) 
‘ greedy,’ ‘ bold,’ AaKatew ‘to wench,’ though I should prefer to con- 
nect Awiwy with rt. Aav, AaF (No. 536), for through all the Greek 
words here adduced there runs the fundamental idea of ‘ unrestrained 
desire,’ ‘bold lust,’ with which Awtoy will not fit in; on the other 
hand this all the better suits Aewpyd-s ‘ sinner,’ probably from Aa-Fop- 
yos, where Aa is a contracted adjective stem from dao, Aaco (cp. 
Hartung on Aesch. ‘Prom.’ 5). Hence Aewpyds is one who acts in 
opposition to Oéus or dSikn according to his own desires. da-cOa 
maitew, A\d-cOw" xdevatérw (Hes.) quite recall the meaning of the Skt. 
las, —las-c-ivu-s presupposes las-cu-s, whence it 1s derived as fest- 


438 BOOK II. 


twus from festu-s. — Ascoli ‘ Fonol.’ 228 [189] regards the Skt. sh here 
as in bhash (No. 407) as a representative of sk.— Whether OIr, air-le 
‘voluntas,’ com-airle ‘consilium,’ contain the rt. las is very doubtful, 
for there is no demonstrable trace of as, and the words which prob 
ably belong to air-le, ir-lithe ‘obediens,’ irladigur ‘ oboedio,’ lam, 
air-lam ‘promptus,’ ‘ paratus’ (Z%. 770, 802, 868) deviate also in 
meaning. 


538. rAad-s left. — Lat. laevu-s. — ChSl. lévit. 


Pott i. 119, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 128, Benf. ii. 306. — Hesych. gives 
the derivative words dai-d:0-s, Aa-Spd-s, and AaiBa doris, AaiBas domidas 
Kpyres, which Ahrens ‘Dor.’ 49 aptly refers here. — Angermann 
‘Stud.’ v. 393 regards the cognomen Laeca (from *Laevi-ca) as the 
same as Scaevola, cp. Vas-ica. 


534. Adé, Ady-dnv with the heel, with the foot, Aak-7- 
i¢-m strike out with the foot, Aakx-mrdrn-To-s 
trodden with the feet. — Lat. calx (st. calc), 
calc-ar, calc-eu-s, calc-d-re, cale-i-tra-re. — ON. 
hel-l [ AS. héla| calx. — Lith, kul-ni-s heel. 


Pott ii’. 204, Benf. ii. 316, Fick ii°. 59. — A « has been lost at the 
beginning of the Greek word, perhaps under the influence of the « of the 
following syllable, so that *«\aé must be regarded as an older form of 
Aaé, and as a metathesis of calz. The &, as in wi&, arose from a case- 
suffix s, so that «ax =cale remains as the noun-stem. In this the 
second # is derivative, hence the root is kal, which probably occurs also 
in kod-e-rpd-w (cp. cal-c-i-trd-re) ‘stamp,’ and reminds us on the one 
hand of Lat. cel-l-0, on the other hand of Lith. £zJ-t2 ‘strike,’ ‘thresh.’ 
Add ddk-ri-s ‘club,’ in the Alexandrian writers. Cp. No. 55. 


535. Aa-d-s people, Aa-of folk, Xa-i-rTo-s, A7-i-To-s publi- 
cus, AecT-ovpyia public duty. — Goth. jugga- 
lauth-s youth, OHG. liut populus, pl. liwte folk 
(Germ. Leute). — Ch8l. Gud-t% ra6-s, ud-ye Naot 
homines ; Lett. laudi-s folk, people. 


Pott W. iii. 1017, Benf. ii. 28.—The Greek word contains the 
stem Aafo, established by Aavaynra ‘C. I.’ 1466 and Aafo-x6-Fov, which 
Priscian read (i. 22, vi. 69 H.) ‘in tripode vetustissimo.’ If only for 
this reason, but also because the change of d into A can only be 
proved to take place in Greek in a few dialects, I cannot admit the 
conjecture of Bréal (‘Mythe d’Cidipe’ p. 18), that Aad-s corresponds 
to the Skt. dasa-s. Nor can Bernhardt’s derivation (‘ Programm von 
Wiesbaden’ 1862 p. 11 ff.) from the rt. cAv (No. 62) be maintained as 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 439 


‘ obedient,’ for the loss of an initial k is extremely raré. The other 
languages point to a primitive form laudh. Hence the Goth, diud-an 
‘crescere’ cannot be compared at any rate directly : for the attempt 
to regard this verb with the Skt. rudh (ruh) as the root of the Gk. 
Aaf-o, which would thus stand for *\av6-o, is a failure. The northern 
words are at most only distantly related to the Greek. — The deriva- 
tion of Baor-ev-s, i.e. Herzog (‘leader of the people’), from the rt. Ba 
and Jon. Xev = dao (cp. Aev-ruxidy-s), compounded like Sryci-yxopo-s, is 
more fully established in the ‘ Rhein. Mus.’ iy. (1845) p. 258 f. Cp. 
also Déderlein ‘Gloss.’ 2007. An important parallel is supplied by 
Cevgi-Aew-s, as Sophocles ‘Fr.’ 136 D called the king ‘6 tmrefevypévor 
eiat Aaoi’ (Hesych.) — Kuhn ‘Ind. Stud.’ i. 334 first referred Bacc- 
Acv-s to the stem Aev=dafa (daa-s) ‘stone,’ so that it would mean 
‘stone-treader,’ referring to the old Teutonic and Keltic custom that 
the king should show himself to the people on a stone. He com- 
pares also = 503 of de yépovres eiar emi Eeoroict Aidors fepS evi KiKAg. 
Pictet ii. 395 adds some further illustrations; Bergk ‘ Rhein. Mus.’ 
xix. 604 states the same etymology as a ‘thesis.’ Pott ii”, 250 does 
not decide. Phonetically both explanations are possible. The former 
seems to me the simpler, and the custom on which the latter is based 
does not appear sufficiently proved for Greece. For there is a great 
difference after all between a high stone which the king stands upon 
in order to be seen, and the stone seats of the old judges. — Perhaps 
OCymr. liti-maur < frequens populis’ (Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ iv. 395) belongs 
here. 


586. Root AaF Ad-w, aro-Aav-w enjoy, A«-la, An-i-(d)-s 
booty, A7-i-¢-0-war capture, A7-1-71(6)-s she who 363 
gives booty, Ad-rpi-s mercenary. 

Lat. li-cru-m, Lav-er-na goddess of thieves, lav-er- 
n-i0n-es thieves. 

Goth. lau-n (n.) reward (Germ. Lohn), anda-launi 
recompense. 7 

ChSl. lov-i-ti hunt, catch, lov-% chase, capture. 

Olr. lég, lwach pretium, foenus. 


Pott W. i. 1292, Benf. ii. 2, Stokes ‘ Ir. Gloss.’ 792. —Ad-ov r 229 
(cp. Ade 230) according to Aristarchus (‘ Apollon. Lex.’ p. 107 Bekk.) 
dmodavorikas éxov hence, ‘feasting’ (Schol. B. dwodavorixnds éobiwv). 
Quite otherwise Déderlein ‘Gloss.’ 2270, who on the strength of a 
gloss of Hesych. translates the word by bellen ‘bark,’ while others ex- 
plain Ade by Prérov. I follow Aristarchus and regard Ad-w for Aaf-w 
as the stem-verb, whence all the rest is developed. The oldest Doric 


364 


4.40 BOOK It. 


form for Xela is Xala or Ada Pind. ‘Ol.’ xi. 44 (Zacher ‘Nomina in -atos’ 
p: 73), Hdt. Anin. Probably the word dw-iav (for AwF-1wv), superl. AGo- 
ro-s, mentioned already under No. 532, belongs here, so that it 
would properly mean ‘the more paying. Cp. Tobler ‘Ztschr.’ ix. 
262.—For laverniones fures Paul. ‘Epit.’ 117.  dd-rpo-v ‘pay’ is 
tolerably late. Like Ad-rpi-s it goes back to Aa, which is related to 
AaFf as xo to Kof (No. 64).— The older use of the Latin Jatro (e.g. 
Plaut. ‘Mil.’ 949) is quite equivalent to that of the Gk. darpr-s. 
Hence I consider latro as a borrowed word, which received an 
ampliative ending on Italian ‘soil, and by degrees passed into a 
contemptuous sense. — Corssen i’. 359.—It is natural to compare 
with Lat. Laverna Corn. lowuern ‘vulpes, and with this beast of 
prey is connected lowuennan ‘mustela,’ perhaps also Corn. Joven 
‘pediculus,’ lewen-ki xvvdpua (Z?. 1074 ff.). In Corn. louen, Cymr. 
llawen ‘laetus,’ OCymr. leguenid ‘laetitia’ (Z?. 128, 131) the funda- 
mental meaning of this root can hardly be preserved, if they really be- 
longed to it. | 
536 b. Adm-7-o lick, lap, A\ag-voow devour, swallow. 
Lat. lamb-o, lab-ru-m, lab-iu-m, lab-ea, Labeo. 
OHG. lef-sa, NHG. Lefze, Lippe lip, OHG. laf-an 
to lap. 
Lith. /wpa lip. 
Pott i’. 259, Benf. 11. 12, Lottner ‘Ztschr.’ vii. 185, Corssen 
‘ Beitr.’ 353. — We must take daz as the root with which however we 
can hardly connect Aardocew, éEadkardfew. In Latin p is weakened to 
b. In Greek the p is also aspirated. — Fick i°. 751 places here also 
ON. lepil-l, OHG. leffil, OPruss. lapini-s ‘ spoon,’ connecting them with 
ON. lep-ja ‘ sup.’ 
537. Words previously discussed here are now placed 
under No. 496. 


538. Root Aer Aéy-w pick, collect, count, tell, speak, Xex- 
T0-s, Aoy-d(d)-s chosen, kara-Aéy-w specify, cvA- 
Aoy-7 collection, €x-Aoy-7 selection, Ady-o-s, A€£t-5 
speech, Aoy-(¢-o-wae reckon, consider. 

Lat. leg-o, leg-io(n), de-lec-tu-s, lec-tu-s chosen, leg- 
ulu-s collector, leg-ti-men, lec-ti-o(n), lec-tor, di-lig- 
ens, neg-leg-o, intel-leg-o, re-lig-io, é-leg-a-ns. 

Goth. lis-a ovAdéEyoo. 

Lett. /asz-tt collect, Lith, lés-ti gather up, api-las-v%-s 
dainty (2). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 441 


Pott W. iii. 606, Ahrens ‘ Philol.’ xxvii. 251, H. Romundt ‘The 
root Aey in Greek’ L. 1869, M. v. Lingen ‘The roots Aey and ex’ 
L. 1877. —Buttmann discusses the use of A¢yw ‘ Lexil.’ ii. 96 ff. It 
appears from this that the meaning ‘speak’ is quite the latest ; for 
this is developed in Homer only gradually from the earlier meaning, 
through the intermediate notion of ‘counting one’s words’ (cp. Eng. 
tale and Germ. zihlen). This is an objection to Benfey’s combina- 
tions li. 127 and to others as well. The name A€¢-Aey-es, if at all of 
Greek origin, would rather denote select bands (AeAeypévor, dexroi) 
than a collected nation. — Lobeck ‘ El.’ i. 40 connects d-Aéy-@ with this 
root, reminding us of AéyecOar, Aoyiferba ‘count.’ But the Homeric 
use of ddéyw, ddeyifa, ddeyivw, as stated by Déoderlein ‘Gloss.’ 109, 
will not quite suit this. It is clear, however, that d-éy-w (with pro- 
thetic a?) is the opposite of Lat. nec-leg-o, and Oedv dw ovk ddéyortes 
(II 388) is the exact opposite of Lat. religens and religio (Gell. iv. 9). 
For the applications of the root to what is immaterial cp. Max Miller 
li, 63, Pott i?. 201.— dAéoxn ‘place of conversation,’ ‘ talk,’ ‘converse,’ 
is not yet quite cleared up as to its suffix (Pott i?. 644).—The 
Teutonic and Lithuanian words, so far as they are directly connected, 
must be referred to a stem Jaks, expanded by the addition of s. 
There is a similar loss of explosives in the Goth. thus-undei = Lith. 
tukstanti-s ‘a thousand, vadrstv (rt. varg No. 141), Goth. nithjr-s 
(No. 342), sebum (No. 337), in the OHG. fd-st (No. 384), mist = 
Goth. maths-tu-s (note on No. 175).— The Lith. Jés-é2 is only used 
of birds, which gather, pick up grains, In a manner quite correspond- 
ing to the meaning which has seemed to us the original one. From 
this the application to the reading of what was written seems to have 
been developed independently in the Gk. ém-déyoua (Herod.), dva- 
Aéyouat (Plutarch), in the Lat. deg-o, and doubtless also in the German 
lesen. Many interesting and likely comparisons of Aéy# with words 
in the Teutonic family are made by Moller ‘Ztschr.’ xxiv. 455 ff. ; he 
connects leg-to with the Norwegian rekkja ‘row, ‘troop, Aocyifopae 
with the ON. rekja, OHG. rachjan ‘reckon, ‘be of opinion,’ ddreyito 
with the ON. rekja, OHG. ruachen (cp. Fick ui*. 249). As it 
is only in Greek, and here proportionately late, and never in the 
Italian region, that this root means ‘speak,’ lew cannot possibly 
mean ‘ what is spoken ;’ so that Lottner’s connexion of it (‘ Ztschr.’ 
vii. 167) with the equivalent ON. dég = Engl. law, and his deriva- 
tion of these words from the rt. Aex (No. 173, cp. Pott W. 1. 159, 
and ‘oi xeipevor vduou, O€-yi-s) deserve every consideration. Cp. 
Bugge ‘Stud.’ iv. 206. The only difficulty that remains is presented 
by the Ose. lig-ud = lége with a g which cannot be explained from gh 
(Ascoli ‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 256). Biicheler ‘Osk. Bleitafel’ p. 9 expresses 


44.2 BOOK IT. 


himself decidedly in favour of connecting Jew with legere, with the 
primary meaning of ‘taking together,’ ‘grouping, ‘ordinance.’—From 
lego Jos. Scaliger derives not only leg-iimen but lig-nu-m (© 547 emi 
dé Eva woAAa eyorro), Which would thus have meant properly ‘ brush- 
wood,’ ‘ faggots:’ this etymology has phonetically more probability 
than that from the Skt. rt. dah ‘burn’ (Bopp ‘GI.,’ Pott i. 282), for 
lig-n-um : leg = tig-n-um : teg (for tee No. 235).—Corssen differs 
on many points 1°. 444, 447, 531. — Ol. degais ‘legisti,’ ‘legit’ (Z?. 
462), etc. is borrowed from the Lat. lego: cp. Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 147. 
Ir. lessagam (inf. lessugud) is derived from Olr. dess, Cymr. Jless 
‘commodum, and denotes ‘to look after the welfare, the advantage of 
865 a person or thing ;’ and cannot be traced back to a root with g, be- 

cause of Cymric s: hence it can hardly be identified with Goth. isa. 
539. ei-o-s, Aev-pd-s smooth, even, Ael-6-77(T)-s smooth- 
ness, Ael-aiv-m smoothen. — Lat. lév-i-s, lév-7- 

ta-(t)-s, lévi-g-are, lév-are. 

Pott ii. 277, Benf. ii. 121.— The form d¢cv-pd-s, which Hesych. 
explains by AecZos, and which occurs elsewhere in the sense of ‘ level,’ 
‘wide,’ has preserved the v, which corresponds to the Lat. v, for Aev- 
po-s : léy-i-s = Ayv-pd-s : Myi-s, as Lat. adjective-stems in a regularly 
correspond to Greek.adjective-stems inv. For the root cp. No. 544. — 
Here belongs also dag, with hypocoristic suffix, mais dpxeyéveos 
(Hesych.) ‘ smooth-chin.’ 


540. Aéx-plo-s, adv. A€x-pis, Hom. Arx-pi-Pi-s cross, awry, 
Aogé-s cross, crooked, Alyé, Aié mAdyvos (Hesych.). 

Lat. lic-i-nu-s with crumpled horns, Licin-iu-s, ob- 
liquu-s, li-mu-s distorted, awry, luxu-s sprained, 
lux-Gre sprain. 

Lith. lénk-ti bow, link-ti bend oneself, partic. linkes 
bent, crooked, -link (in compos.) -wards, ChSl. 
lek-@ kaépnto, lak-% arcus. 

Pott W. iii. 257, Benf. ii. 316.— We must start from the st. 
Aex, which was modified in two ways, by aspiration, and by the 
weakening of « intov. But the original state of the sounds is clearly 
shown in Aexpot by the side of Ackpot’ dfo. trav edadei@y kepdrav 
(Hesych.), the meaning of which is closely akin to that of le-tnu-s. 
We may with Déderlein ‘ Lat. Wortbildung’ p. 35 add haula ‘ cake,’ 
‘cracknel,’ according to Varro ‘ L. L.’ v. 107 M. a Sabine word, so- 
called from its cross-folded shape. With a raising of the ¢ to o and an 
expansive or derivative o we have Aogd-s, which is quite parallel to 
luwu-s. As to the common comparison of the name Aoéias, it seems 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 443 


to me that there is much to be said for Frohde’s view (Bezzenb. 
‘ Beitr.’ ii. 8) that this epithet of Apollo, like the corresponding Acfe 
for Artemis is connected with the Skt. laéksh-man ‘mark,’ ‘sign,’ 
lakshad-ja-ti ‘to mark.’ Without the expansive s the stem probably 
appears with a dull vowel in Juc-wn(t)-s ‘genus operis pistorii’ Paul. 
‘Epit. 119. Cp. ‘Symbola Philol. Bonn.’ i. 276, Corssen i%. 35 
adds l-m-e(t)-s as ‘ cross-road,’ Ji-men as ‘cross-beam,’ and (on p. 
498) other Latin words. Biicheler in Joh. Schmidt’s ‘ Vocal.’ i. 
107 points out from Attius (Ribbeck ‘Trag.?’ p. 284) a Lat. verb 
lingu~ier = ‘ obliquari.’ Schmidt places here also Lat. Jax (dolus) and 
lac-i0 (pel-lic-io) with ChSl. lgk-a ‘dolus’ (also ‘sinus’): ep. Mikl. 
Ue 


541. Root Aig AefB-w drop, pour, pour out, Ao.B-7 drink- 

Offering, Ai (st. AuB), AuB-a(d)-s, AZB-os moisture, 

drop, AB-pd-s moist, AefB-n-Opo-v channel, 
meadow, A.B-dd-10o-v water, meadow. 

Lat. dé-lib-i%i-tu-s moistened, ltb-d-re, liba-tio, Lib-er. 


Benf. ii. 123, who follows the old explanation of Ai (st. Az), 
according to which the 8. W. wind is called the ‘ wetting’ (cp. Néros 
No. 443). For the forms Atp, Aas Lobeck ‘Paralip.’ 114. In 
Hesych. we find also AiSeu" omévdes as a shorter present-form, and Ae- 
Bios’ Aiévucos, corresponding to the Italian Liber, with which t8nva* rév 
oivov Kpiyres is compared ; this, like i8-dvn, i8-avo-s ‘ pail’ (i8-6n ‘ plug ’?) 
and the Hom. ¢i8-«, seems to have lost its 4 (Lobeck ‘ Elem.’ i. 108). 
Cp. ikpav' Auxpav Hes. Pott W. i. 606 quotes similar instances from 
the Wallachian, e. g. z#ze = Lat. licia. The % of delibii-tu-s would be 366 
of itself sufficient to banish any idea that the Lat. words might be 
borrowed. — We may further quote here some words, which seem to 
be derived directly from a rt. di, the expanded form of which lies 
before us in ib. In Skt. 77 means ‘adhaerere,’ but also, in com- 
position with prepositions, ‘solvi, e.g. d-li ‘to become powerless,’ 
pra-li ‘ die,’ vi-li ‘ dissolvi,’ ‘evanescere.’ As we find also a rt. 7? with 
the meaning ‘drop,’ ‘flow, (Skt. ri-na-mi ‘make to flow,’ OIr. do-li- 
mim ‘mano,’ ‘polluceo’ Z?. 435), from which Justi ‘ Handbuch der Zend- 
sprache,’ p. 56 derives Zd. irz-th ‘ pass away,’ ‘ flow away,’ and Corssen 
i’, 534 ri-vu-s and various river-names, we may consider ‘ melt’ as 
the fundamental idea from which on the one hand ‘flow,’ ‘drop,’ 
‘drip,’ ‘pass away,’ ‘melt away,’ on the other ‘ melt on to,’ ‘adhere to,’ 
have been developed. Cp. No. 340. Hence Lat. J¢-n-o (part. li-tu-s), 
cp. a-Aive (‘Greek Verb’ p. 178) po-li-o, Olr. le-n-im, ‘adhaereo’ (perf. 
ro-lil ‘adhaesit,’ cp. ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiil. 210, 230, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vii. 13, 


44.4 BOOK II. 


21), Lith. déj-w ‘pour,’ ly-ti ‘pluere, ChSI. li-7-a-ti ‘fundere,’ loj ‘oréap” 
belong here (Pott. W. i. 600), and also perhaps Ai-pyn, Ac-pny (st. Atpev), 
Aeu-y, which in their meanings of ‘pool,’ ‘ harbour,’ and ‘meadow’ 
evidently stand in the closest relation with each other, and probably 
also with the Lat. l2-t-ws (cp. pec-t-us). Pauli however (‘Ztschr.’ xviii. 
23) wishes to connect /t-tws with xAt-rv-s ‘slope.’ Aetu-ov is formed from 
a lost Aeqa(v), like xecuov from xepa(v), and coincides with A«iBnOpo-v 
(Aci8nOpa). Much important matter is furnished by Volckmar ‘ Die © 
Stimme li und rz’ Philol. vi. 627. Joh. Schmidt ‘Voce.’ 11. 248 ff. 
wishes to keep the two separate. — With the Gk. Aepov goes Cymr. 
Uwyn ‘ fruticetum,’ OCymr. loinow ‘ frutices,’ Gael. lian ‘ pratum’ (Z?, 
96), the meaning of which is worth notice. 


542. rfvo-v linen, flax, thread, Aiv-eo-s linen. — Lat. 
linu-m, lin-eu-s, linea, lin-t-eu-s. — Goth. lein 
linen, OHG. lin flax. — Lith. lina-s flax-stalk, 
lina-¢ (pl.) flax, ChSl. lind linum. — Olt. lin 
flax, léine (gen. lénead) camisia (Z?. 255). | 


Pott 17. 119, Schleich. ‘ Ks.’ 128, Stokes ‘Ir. Gl.’ 36. — Perhaps 
we may, with Pott ii?, 246, place here also the st. Atr (Hom. dat. Air-i, 
acc. Nir-a), the r of which reminds us of the ¢ of lin-t-eu-s, and also 
of the Lith. linta (‘Lex.’) ‘ornamental band,’ and ON. linn-r (for 
* lindh-r) ‘ girdle.’ — The difference of quantity in Greek, where the ., 
with the exception of one place in Aristophanes (‘ Pax’ 1178), and a 
difficult passage in Antiphanes (Meineke ‘Com.’ iii. p. 25) is short, 
and Latin, where it is always long, is remarkable. Cp. Hehn® 523.— 
Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 147 considers Olt. lin ‘rete’ (Z?. 21), which cannot be 
separated from the above words, as borrowed from the Latin, though 
with some doubt; Jléine is certainly genuinely Irish. [Cp. Fick 
‘ Indo-Germanen Europas’ p. 487.] 


543. Ai-s, A€-wv, Ion. Aefwy (st. AeovT) lion, Aé€-aiva 
lioness. — Lat. leo(n). — OHG. lewo(n). — Chl. 
livt. — Ir. leo, leoman, Cymyr. llew, Corn. leu lion. 


Pott W. i. 1261, Benf. ii. 1 are inclined to regard the word as 
borrowed from the Hebrew daish, while Benfey ii. 10 prefers to take 
Hebr. /abi as the source. In that case it must have spread from 

367 Greece, and been borrowed again from the Greek by the other 
languages; but the independent form of the word in the various 
families of speech is against this. A. Miller (‘ Bezz. Beitrage’ i. 
290) expresses himself against the borrowing. Pictet i. 423 decides 
for the Indo-Germanic origin of the word Aév, appealing to the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 445 


Homeric similes from lions, and to the evidence of Herodotus (vii. 
125) and of Aristotle as to the existence of lions in Paeonia. He 
connects the name with Aeia, and hence with No. 536, but regards 
the derivation of Ai-s from the Semitic as demonstrated. But Xi-s 
[so Aristarch.] (acc. \iv) with a very surprising lengthening of a 
preceding short final vowel (A 239 dare Ais [emi re A A 380, cp. P 
109, = 318]) almost makes us conjecture that Afi-s was the primitive 
form, with a fF corresponding to the OHG. and ChSl. v. Pauli 
‘Die Benennung des Liéwen’ (Miinden 1873) suggests the rt. liv (Lat. 
liv-i-du-s ‘grayish yellow’ [but can this meaning be justified ?] 
The OHG. theme Jewon is equivalent to the Lat. Jeon, while the 
Gk. Xeovr has a 7 at the end, absent from the fem. A€awa = Aeav-ta 
(‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 215). —[From the absence of any corresponding name 
for the lion among the Eastern Aryans Benfey ‘ Geschichte der 
Sprachw.’ p. 598 argues that the common Indo-Germanic home 
must have been in Europe.|— Lith. Ujdta, which in popular stories 
means ‘dragon,’ is to be entirely omitted here, according to Briickner 
‘Slawische Lehnwérter des Litauischen’ p, 105. — Cymr. Jew ‘leo’ 
is marked in Z’. 109 as borrowed (Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 147). 


544, Stem Air (yAcT) Aé-s (st. Atv) smooth, bald, Aztr-d-s 
smooth, sleek, Avcad-s, Alo7ro-s, Aiopo-s smooth, 
Aio-rTpo-v hatchet, adze. 

Lat. glit-tu-s smooth, gli-s (st. glit) humus tenax. 
Lith. glitw-s smooth, sticky. 

The shortest stem occurs only in the Hom. Ais wérpn. For ‘ glittis 
‘subactis, levibus, teneris’ Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 98 with O. Miiller’s note. 
Nio-mo-s appears (cp. p. 601) to be for drr-Fo-s, Auo-od-s for Aur-Jo-s, 
The y is retained in yAirrov' rd dmédovpa Eustath., ydurrdv ydoudv 
Hesych. (cp. Steph. ‘Thes.’) and in yAio-xpo-s ‘ sticky ’ — for yAcr-xpo-s, 
cp. aio-xpd-s for aid-ypo-s — probably also in 6dww-6-dv-@ (ddto6-0-v) 
‘slip,’ for its stem is édir. We are also probably right in adding the 
name of the Cretan town ’Odconv, also Atoony, Bdioony ‘a glitta 
petra, with Voretzsch ‘De Inscr. Cret.’ p. 10. Cp. Ahr. ‘Dor.’ 50. 
—A shorter stem without r appears in ydo-d-s ‘sticky oil,’ yAi-a 
(yhoa) ‘glue,’ and the closely connected Lat. gli-s, gli-t-en, gli-t- 
inu-m (Corssen i?. 384). — ddt-Bpd-s ‘slippery’ (Hes.) finds a com- 
panion in the further expanded lu-bri-cu-s (Lobeck ‘ El,’ 85 ; cp. Fick 
ii’. 223). Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 430 rejects the connexion, and prefers to 
refer lubri-cu-s to the Goth. sliwp-an ‘slip’ (schliipfen). In that 
case then we should have also to connect 6-A:8-pd-s, as Joh. Schmidt 
‘Voc.’ i. 163 conjectures, with OHG. sléfar (‘lubricus’). — Probably 
we must assume an early interchange between 7 and w, as in No, 545. 


446 BOOK Il. 


— With regard to the loss of an initial y I am now somewhat 
doubtful. 


545. Root arp Ai éwOvuia (Hesych.), Auy-ouvpia desire 
of passing urine, Aim-r-@ strive, desire. 

Skt. rt. lubh (lubh-a-mi) to be confused, feel desire, 
lub-dha-s desirable, lobha-s desire, longing. 

Lat. lub-et, lib-et, lib-t-do, pro-lub-iu-m, liber, Ose. 
loufro. 

Goth. liub-s dear, bréthra-lub-6 brotherly love, 
OHG. liub-an to hold dear, liub-én to be dear, 
mét-luba affectus, lob laus, lob-d-n laudare, af- 
firmare. 

ChSl. Gub-i-ti directv, ljub-% carus, Gub-y dydrn. 

368  DeAuupéevos paxyns Aesch. ‘Sept.’ 380, Aimrev Apollon. Rhod.— 
Au emibvuia is compared with Lat. libet by Lobeck “Paralip.’ 113. 
No case-forms of the word are known; still from the collection of 
words given here we could expect to find no other stem than dud. 
Perhaps this occurs also in the very obscure gloss of Hesych. \d- 
epvoovtes’ ev avvderdpa tér@ mpoodpiras Siudyovres ‘Stud.’ iit. 198. — 
The clearer analogies in the other languages in Bopp ‘GL,’ Pott W. 
v. 375 ff. The interchange between 7 and uw is as in Gr-1v-o rt, 
gu (No. 417). Lat. liber ‘free,’ according to the gloss in Paul. 
‘Epit.’ 121 loebes-wm (2) liberum, had once a diphthong in the stem. 
The Oscan lav-freis (gen. sing.= liberi), Falisc. loferta = liberta 
(Corssen i?. 151 note) point to w as the vowel of the root: a 
in Oscan, ow in Latin writing is here, as in tév-ta ‘community ’= Goth. 
thiu-da, a genuine diphthong (cf. Locr. Ndfaaxros beside Navzaktos). 
For ¢devGepo-s, which has been incorrectly compared with this see 
p. 497. For the meaning the Ch8l. Ujwb-z-mz ‘sponte’ is instructive. 
We must also place here (Venus) Libitina according to what Preller 
‘Rom. Mythol.’ 387 has collected on the subject. 


546. Root Av Av-w loosen, Ad-a dissolution, separation, 
Av-ol-s loosening, Av-THp loosener, Adv-Tpo-v 
ransom. | 

Skt. rt. /% (lu-na-mi) cut, cut in two, lav-<-tra-m 
sickle. 

Lat. re-lu-o undo again, so-lv-o for se-lu-o (so-lii-tu-s), 
lu-o pay for, luere solvere (Gloss., Loewe Prodr, 
4.22). 

Goth. lau-s-j-a Ava, laus loose, us-laus-ein-s AUTpwats. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 447 


Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Pott W. i. 1294, Benf. ii. 8, Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 10, Fick 
i°, 755.— The more forcible idea of ‘cutting apart’ appears in the 
European languages for the most part in a milder form. The 
Teutonic laws, OHG. lds, like the Goth. ls-a (No. 538), and like 
OHG. hlo-s-é-m (No, 62), is expanded by a sibilant, and is probably 
rightly connected with Goth. fra-lius-an ‘lose’ (verlieren), so that 
we must assume a new stem dus. — Lat. so-lv-0, even in Vossius 
‘Etym. is broken up into se-du-o and compared to so-cors for 
se-cor(d)-s, The uncompounded root probably appears in the old 
Roman goddess Lua, who is mentioned sometimes as Lua Saturnt, 
sometimes as Lua Mater, and who is to be regarded with Preller 
‘Rom. Mythol.’ 419 as a goddess of destruction, or of reaping. 
Probably lue-s (cp. No. 148) also belongs here. — For Av-a-io-s Pott 
‘ Ztsehr.’ vi, 136. 


547. Root Av Ad-wa water that has been used for 
washing, filth, Av-Opo-v defilement, Av-uy insult, 
Av-paiv-o-pat insult, Aov-w wash, Aov-Tpd-v (Ao(F)- 
e-Tpd-v bath, Aov-r7#p bathing tub, Aot-rpio-v 
water that has been used for bathing. 

Lat. lu-o (ad-lu-o, pol-lu-o, di-lu-o), di-luv-iu-m, 
ad-luv-te-s, lui-tor washer, pol-li-bru-m washing 
basin, lu-tu-m, lu-s-tru-m, lav-e-re, lav-d-re, lau- 
tu-s. 

ON. Jé-a adluo. 

Olr. Iléthor, Idthur, Arem. louazr alveus, canalis 
(Z?. 782). 

Pott W. i. 1300, Benf. ii. 121, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 516, Fick 11°. 223. 369 
— From the fundamental idea of ‘washing’ all the others are 
gradually developed, especially that of ‘dirt,’ as that which is washed 
off, and hence that of ‘insult’ (cp. pol-lu-o mpo-mndak-ifo and dvpai- 
vouat), and on the other side that of ‘atonement,’ so that perhaps not 
merely lustru-m ‘mire,’ but also listru-m ‘sin-offering’ belongs here : 
the latter according to Paul. ‘Epit.’ 120 has a long w, and hence 
probably comes like Xov-rpd-v from the strengthened stem: both have 
the same s as mon-s-tru-m. The old Latin lav-e-re(Ennius Vahl. p. 210) 
is parallel to Aov-ew (Hom. praeter. \d-e = Aof-e, even Attic 2nd sing. 
mid. Ad-e, and also dod-ra, Aod-cOar): it is developed from Av by an 
addition of sound. — The rt. mdv (No. 369), from which some have 
wished to derive this rt. Av by aphaeresis, has an entirely different 
ramification and not inconsiderable differences in meaning. — This 
rt. Av in many of its applications is closely connected with No. 546, 


370 


448 BOOK II. 


especially in Ad-pa (cp. Lat. l6-tiu-m ‘urine’), X0-yn, Av-paivouar, hu-pedy, 
all of which mean not only ‘aspersion,’ like podlwere, but also ‘damage,’ 
‘ruin.’ Add dmodoveéueva’ KodkoBocew Kimpio Hes.— The OGall. 
gloss lautro ‘balneo’ (Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vi. 229, vill. 343) contains the 
same stem as ON. déthor. Olr. loth (gen. loithe) ‘coenum’ with OGall. 
Lutetia is compared with Lat. lutwm (Z*. 15): but there is also 
OIr. dathach ‘ marsh.’ 


548. Avy€ (st. Avyx) lynx. — OHG. luhs. — Lith. luszi-s, 
ChSl. ryst pardalis. 
Pott W. iii. 251, Benf. ii. 126, 372, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 498. — 
Probably from rt. Ave ‘see,’ whence Avyx-ev-s (No. 87). 


549. Root Aur (cAvy) Avg-@ (Avyydvopuar) hiccough, sob 
(Germ. schlucke, schluchze), A\vyé (st. Avyy), Avy- 
p6-s hiccough. 

OHG. sluccan deglutire. 


Benf. ii. 12, who quotes Germ. schlucken. — Olr. slucim ‘I hic- 
cough,’ Cymr. dlyneu ‘ devorare’ (ro duncas gloss. on ‘ gutturicavit ’ 
Z’, 1064), contain a root ending in a tenuis. 


550. AdB-n insult, AwBd-o-pat, AwB-ev-w insult, scorn, 
AwPBn-THp slanderer. — Lat. lab-é-s spot, disgrace, 
labé-cula. 


Pott i'. 209, Benf. ii. 10. — It seems to me certain that these words 
go together, and that ‘7ab-e-s macula in vestimento’ (Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 121) 
is not originally identical with Zdbe-s ‘ fall’ (cp. lab-2, /ab-are and Skt. 
lamb ‘labi.’) Corssen’s attempt (17. 402) to connect labé-s ‘ spot’ and 
labé-s ‘fall’ by means of the notion ‘ damage,’ I regard as extremely 
forced. But the Greek words with the meaning of ‘ outrage,’ ‘ dis- 
grace,’ ‘damage,’ which is distinctly prominent in them, are entirely 
removed from the notion of ‘ slipping,’ which is so clearly prominent in 
labi and labare. Somewhat otherwise Fick 1°. 192. — It is a mistake 
to attempt to find the root of our words in any form like BAaB in Bdar- 
ro, and hence to derive \#B-y (for BAwB-n), like kom-n from rt. kar (No. 
34). It would be better to go back to No. 547, and to compare Avy ; 
in that case we should have to regard the B as developed from F. 
But /dbe-s then offers a difficulty. For in Latin the transition from 
v to b, even if not unheard of, as Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 156 maintains, is 
at any rate limited to a narrow range, and to certain definite groups 
of sounds, 


551. wéAa-s (st. weradv) black, peralty-m blacken, podvv-o 
spot, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 449 


Skt. mdla-m (subst.) dirt, filth, mala-s dirty, nig- 
gardly, malind-s dirty, impure, black. 

Lat. malu-s, mali-tia, mali-gnu-s, male-ficu-s. 

Goth. mail puris, OHG. mei! macula. 

Lith. mdli-s clay, mélyna-s blue, Lett. mel-s black. 

Cymr. melyn, Corn. milin, Arem. melen flavus, 
croceus (Z?, 824). 


Pott i. 112, 253, Bopp ‘GL,’ Benf. i. 478. — These words are all 
simply developed from a rt. mal, which Fick i’. 718 translates by sudeln 
‘ puddle,’ and identifies with mar ‘rub.’ For the moral meaning of 
the Lat. malu-s cp. ‘hic niger est, hunc tu Romane caveto.’ For the for- 
mation of podvvw, which points to a st. podo, ‘Ztschr.’ vi. 89. Further 
poroBpd-s (p 219, o 26), which the ancients explained by podicxav emt 
mv Bopay, certainly belongs to this group of words; but it can hardly © 
be, as Ameis ‘App. to Od. p’ p. 77 maintains, ‘dirt-eater,’ a very 
strange description of the beggar, whose appetite for dainty bits 
is derided, and still more strange as used by Nicand. ‘Ther, 
622 of a plant which creeps on the ground, and hence may well be 
‘dirty,’ but hardly ‘dirt-eating.’ Diintzer ‘ Ztschr.’ xiv. 197 takes Bpo 
asa suffix, without being able to establish this by any analogy. Now 
Aelian ‘N. A.’ vii. 47 gives us the words podd-Bpio-v and poroSpirn-s 
for ‘ sucking-pig,’ and these cannot be separated from é8pio-v, d8pixado-v 
(cp. ‘Studien’ i. 1, 259) ‘young animal,’ especially ‘sucking-pig.’ 
Hence, following Aristoph. Byz. (p.117 Nauck) I divide pod-o8pd-s 
and translate ‘dirty young pig.’ In Nicander the remembrance of 
the main idea has been retained, but not that of the composition. — 
The form kod-d8puo-v (also xdd-aBpo-s) equivalent to poAdS8piov means 
‘black sucking-pig.’ (No. 46).— The radically distinct xedawd-s has 
been discussed under No. 46. 

552. poduvBo-s, worABo-s, woAvBdo-s lead, podvBdi-s, poA- 
tPédaiva ball of lead, podvP-pé-s (Hesych.) leaden- 
coloured, podvB-ot-s leaden, — Lat. plumbu-m, 
plumb-eu-s. — OHG. pli (st. pliwa), — ChSl. 
olovo. 

Pott it. 113, who quotes also the Hindustani mulwa, Benf. i. 525 f., 
Fick i*. 200.—- We must assume, as it seems, a stem-form mlwva. 
The difficult combination of sounds m/ was softened in Greek by means 
of the auxiliary vowel 0, while m in Latin, being in immediate contact 
with 7, changed into the same p, which was produced before 7 in ew- 
em-p-lu-m, tem-p-lu-m. In the Slavo-Lith. branch of languages the 
initial consonant has been entirely lost. — One is tempted to add here 


Gg 


450 BOOK II. 


also liv-or, liv-idu-s, liv-eo, with Pott i’. 120. — The 8 in pdrdvBo-s has 
originated in F,on which see more at p. 585. In Latin the preceding 
nasal has probably brought about the change of v into 6.— I do not 
consider my comparison quite certain. 


5538. dAfyo-s (comp. dAif@v = dALy-Lwv, b7r-odig@v) small, 
dd\vyo-o76-s the least [see Ell. Lex. Soph. and 
Herm. on Ant. 621 (625 D.)], ddAvy-dxui-s a few 
times. 7 
371 Skt. rt. rig and lig (lic-d-mi) pluck, vi-lish-ta-s 
mutilatus, /éc-a-s a little bit. 
OPruss. lik-u-t-s parvus, Lith. lésa-s lean. 


Bopp ‘GIl.,’ Benf. ii. 26. — The o is prothetic, as in 6-Adr-r-@ by the 
side of Aén-w ‘ peel’ (Lobeck ‘ El.’ i, 83); it is wanting in the words 
preserved by Hesych. Auéév (read Aifov) eArarrov, ArCaves (AiCoves t) 
édrroves. y is weakened from « as in picy-o (No. 474), hence Wk is the 
root from which we can arrive at the Low Germ. Jeeg (Engl. low) 
‘low,’ ‘bad,’ ‘weak.’ Perhaps in Avoodv, which in Hesych. is explained 
inter alia by €haccor, a trace of the harder stem dcx is preserved. But 
the lexicographer has confused this with \weody ‘smooth.’ The com- 
parative is naturally to be accented Aiccov. — ddiyytov" ddtyov ‘ E, M.’ 
@duyynov’ ddiyov Hesych. Bergk. ‘ Lyr.®’ 747. 


554. Stem ddA-oAvy ddAoADE-w cry, dAoAVYy-%H, dAOAVY-pO-S 
crying, dAoAvy-#y ery, note of the frog, name 
of a screeching animal, dAoAvy-aia a name for 
the night-owl. 

Skt. ul-ul-¢-s ululabilis, ululatus, wlaka-s owl, 
sereech-owl. 

Lat. wl-ucu-s, ul-ul-a, ulul-d-re, ululd-tu-s, ulula- 
bili-s. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Benf. 1. 46. — The root is wl, Gk. dA, reduplicated wl-wl, 
according to Greek phonetic laws éA-vA (cp. torrie, moppipw), with 
an added v (cp. Skt. wa-ka-s) 6d-vA-v, dissimilated afresh in order to 
avoid the distasteful repetition of syllables containing v (qi-rv-s No. 
417) dd-od-v. From this stem comes directly 6 ddodv-s, a word quoted 
from the comedians, and explained by Photius as yuvakodns, Le. 
‘shrieker:’ whence with a guttural comes the derived ddodvy. For 
the different meanings of the animal’s name éAoAvywy cp. Steph. ‘ Thes.’ 
The fundamental notion of ‘ howling sound’ (cp. ddaAd{w) runs through 
all the words quoted. Hence the connexion with tA-d-o, tda-Kd-pwpor, 
vd-ak-ré-w ‘bark,’ asserted by Benfey and Déderlein (‘Gloss.’ 2272), is 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 451 


not to be absolutely rejected. Ul-ul-dire looks like a reduplicated 
th-a-v, 

555. ovA-e salve, d6Ao06-s salvus. — Lat. salv-u-s, salv-e-o, 
salu(t)-s, salii-bri-s.— Goth. sél-s dyads [AS. 
sélig, MidK. sely, ModE. silly], wn-sél-s movnpés, 
sélei xpnartérns, ON. sel-l felix, OHG. sdlig 
happy. — OlIr. sldn salvus. 

Buttm. ‘ Lexil.’ i. 190, Pott i’. 130, Sonne ‘ Epilegomena zu Benfey’s 
Wurzellexikon’ p. 16, Fick ii*. 254. —We have a trace of the initial 
Spir. asp.=c in Suidas: ddods Sacuvopevns THs mpwtns ovddaBijs Snot 6 
pdvipos kat dyads, and on 6dodppev there are several traces of the ex- 
planation dvvara: kal ddoddpav AeyerOat 6 bytcis Tas ppévas exov (Apollon. 
‘Lex.’ p. 120,16). From 6dod-s comes the form mentioned by Hesych. 
Odoetra’ vyaiver. Hence there are glimpses both of the form and of the 
meaning of salvus: as to the second 0, this certainly represents a F. 
On this see p. 570. In odde the F has been transferred into the first 
syllable, under the form of v (cp. yoova=yovfa). There is a close 
connexion with both words in OvA-to-s, an Ionic surname of Apollo 
according to Strabo xiv. p. 635 dy:acrixds kal matwvixds, TO yap ovAew 
byaivery, and further in ovdetotev | odddorev 2] ev vyeia Puddoootey Hesych. ; 
and according to Ahrens ‘ Acol.’ 284 (otherwise now in ‘ Philol.’ 
XXXvili, 231) also in éAAa& in Simonides (fr. xci. Schneidewin) 
and éAdare in Callimachus (p. 121 O. Schneider). Both these may 372 
remain doubtful. Lobeck ‘Rhemat.’ 111 and Déoderlein ‘ Gloss.’ 
472 prefer to find in odde a vocative like macte; but I see no 
decisive reasons for this, for there is nothing against the laws of 
language in a verbal stem 6dv, 6AF. We may without much hesitation 
add here #AB-o-s, d\B-vo-s with 8 for F. In all these words the funda- 
mental idea remains the same. ovA7 (for Fodvn) ‘scar,’ according to 
Hesych. @dkos cis tyievav fKov, connected by Schleicher ‘Comp.?’ 70 
[p. 45 ‘E. T.’], Fick i*. 772 with Lat. vol-nus, Skt. vrand-m ‘ wound,’ 
‘tear, ‘gap, has nothing in common with our words. —I prefer also 
to discuss separately 6do-s ‘ whole,’ with Skt. sdrva-s ‘ quivis,’ ‘ omnis ’ 
(p. 551). Cp. Corssen i%, 485. — Ir. sldém is simply for sélan Z?. 777. 

556. cdA-o-s, odd-n tossing, restless motion, cad-ev-o 
toss, wave, caddoo-w toss, cddAa€ sieve, addo-$ 
quoit, caAék-wv braggart, cad-vyn’ cuvexys Kivn- 
ois (Hesych.), cadayy noise, cadayé-w shake. 

Lat. salu-s (Einn.), salu-m = oado-s. 
OHG. swéllan swell, boil up, wider-swal-m whirl- 
pool. 


Geo 2 


373 


452 BOOK II. 


Through all the words here collected runs the idea of ‘tossing 
motion,’ which justified Lobeck (‘ Rhemat.’ 112) in connecting od-)o-s 
(cp. ofdaro’ gcece Hesych.) with cei-w ‘shake.’ Add kovi-ccado-s 
‘storm of dust’ (Fick i°. 842). Whether the céd-yara (cp. evooedpo-s) 
denoted originally the ‘ bending timbers’ I do not venture to deter- 
mine. Perhaps we may add geni-s ‘bench’ (Fick 1°. 798). —The meta- 
phor which occurs in caAdkoy reminds us of the Lat. jactare. oddo-s 
‘quoit’ and Sédwv also belong here, as it seems (Van. 1051). — Prob- 
ably a F has been lost after o. Thus in the first place cciw (for ofe- 
jo, cp. the Homer. émt-ocelor),-and then also cado-s (for ofado-s) might 
be connected with the Skt. rt. sw sw-nd-mi, which means ‘ press out,’ 
‘pound,’ and from which the Sdma-drink gets its name, Clemm 
‘ Stud.’ ii. 284 takes a different view on several points. Cp. Nos. 571, 
604, Pott W. 1. 1344. — Frohde ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 263 treats oeiw differ- 
ently. 


557. ciado-v spittle, ofado-s fat, grease, oradrddns 
spittle-like, fat, late Greek odAo-s spittle. — Lat. 
sal-tva. — OHG. sli-m. — ChSl. sli-na saliva, 
Lith. sél-é spittle, slaver. — Olt. saile saliva, da 
sale duo sputa (Z?, 2383), sult fat; Cymr. haliw 
saliva. 

Pott i’. 5, Benf. i. 414, Stokes ‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ p. 36. — Neither 
Benfey nor Kuhn (‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 24) can induce me to believe that the 
Skt. shtiv ‘spit ’ contains the root, for the meaning goes much beyond 
this. It seems to me the most advisable course to assume a distinct 
rt. sjal shortened to szl (sli). — Bopp ‘ Gl.’ compares with sal-twa the 
Skt. salild-m ‘water.’ Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ ii. 259 assumes a rt. sal 
with the by-form s/z, but this would compel us to separate completely 
saliva and ciado-s,— With the root-form sii is connected Ir. slemain 
‘lubricus’ (Z?. 777). 

558. Root opad sPddA-@ (€-onA-a) make to totter, trip, 
opdd-pa slip, a-cdad-7s firm, sure, opad-epd-s 
unsure. —Skt. sphal (sphadla-ja-mi) to send 
bounding against, d-sphdl-ana-m the attack, 
assault. — OHG. falla-n fall. — Lith. ptilw inf. 
pult fall. 

Pott W. ii. 1, 514, Benf. i. 567.—In Skt. there are three radical 
forms nearly akin to each other: skhal ‘waver,’ khal ‘ deceive,’ and 
this sphal. Perhaps sphur ‘jerk,’ ‘quiver,’ also belongs here. The 
transitive meaning ‘shake’ reappears in oddddo, the intransitive in 
apard-s ‘quoit.’— Cp. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 323, Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 453 


xii. 96. — The aspirate in Greek and Sanskrit is developed from a p 
(cp. No. 580), hence spal is to be assumed as the primary form, and 
this explains the f in German, after the loss of the s.— The rt. skal 
‘slip,’ akin in sense to sphal, spal underlies the Goth. skal édeiha, pro- 
perly ‘I fail’ and the Lat. scel-ws=Schuld [‘debt :’ ep. shall]. Cp. 
dneitns p. 557, Delbriick ‘ Ztschr. f. d. Philol.’ i. 135. oxad-nvd-s § un- 
even, ‘wry’ (cp. ckodid-s) has nothing in common. — Lat. fallo, as 
Fick ‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 104 shows, can hardly be reconciled with it, 
because of the initial consonant. Whether ¢ndd-s ‘deceitful,’ hydrodv 
‘deceive,’ (Aeschyl.), pydnrn-s ‘deceiver’ (Hesiod), as opdddoy (more 
correctly oadov)' koddxevooy Hesych. leads us to conjecture, belong to 
opdddo, or, as Fick conjectures, to the rt. bhal, occurring in fallo, I do 
not attempt to decide. —To the OHG. fallan belongs perhaps Olr. 
do-ellatar ‘ declinantur ’ Z?. 473, di-all ‘diverticulum,’ ‘declinatio’ 873 : 
ep. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 2. 

559. vAn wood, forest, vAj-er-s woody, #A-nua under- 
wood. — Lat. silva, silvestri-s, silv-Osu-s, silva- 
ticu-s. 

Vossius ‘ Et.’ s. v. sylva, as the word used then to be written. — 
Kuhn “Ztschr.’ i. 515, ii. 131, Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 303 f.— Both refer 
here not merely saltu-s, but also AS. holt ‘lucus, OHG. holz ‘ lignum,’ 
‘silva.’ But the Teutonic 4 cannot be shown to represent anything 
but an Indo-Germanic 4, while on the other hand the Gk. spiritus 
asper here evidently stands for s, and what is there common to the 
forms swla and kalda which we should have to presume? Legerlotz 
‘Ztschr.’ viii. 208 attempts an explanation from a rt. ofed ‘ burn,’ 
which he finds recurring in the Lith. svi/-ti ‘singe,’ in the AS. swelan 
‘to roast by a slow fire,’ [schwelen] and Skt. svar. The latter root, 
quite unauthenticated, and apparently deduced from words which are 
discussed under No. 663, means only ‘to shine.’ Though the idea of 
‘ glowing’ and of ‘ slow roasting ’ may have developed from this, that of 
‘burning up’ remains still quite distinct. Besides, the use of silva to 
denote ‘ underwood,’ ‘ plantation,’ will not agree with this | cp. Homer’s 
dévdos VAn ‘copse where there are no logs’ A155]. I would attach 
these words to the rt. sw ‘procreare’ (No. 605), did not this root 
appear to be limited to the propagation of animals; there is, however, 
Skt. pra-sii-na-m ‘ bloom,’ ‘ flower.’ The meaning ‘ growth’ (cp. gurdv) 
would suit very well. Perhaps vAy originated from é-A-fa, so that, 
with a weakening of wu to z (cp. libet and lubet), silva—also siltia— 
corresponds to it exactly. The initial sibilant remained in the proper 
name Skamry-cvAn (cleared wood), Lat. Scaptensula, ‘ex ultima anti- 
quitate,’ as Lachmann saw, on Lucret. vi. 810. Cp. the form o¢da 
mentioned under No, 280. 


454 BOOK II. 


560. trAla sole. — Goth. sulja cavdddov, ga-suljan Oe- 
peArodv, OHG. sola. 


874 Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ 34, 338, Diefenb. ‘ Wtb.’ 11. 289. — oda only in 
Hesych. in the glosses vAdeu ra mpds kdoowor Sépyara, for which Musurus 
writes tAia Ta mpos Katripace Séppara, and tAlas rovs Kapraripous (1.e. 
xaptrativous) Tépovs, hence ‘ pieces of leather cut for soles,’ — Otherwise 
Benf. i, 291, xvii, whose derivation from the rt. sw, Lat. swere (No. 578), 
is not improbable for the Greek words, but it is less suitable for the 
Teutonic groups of words gathered by Diefenbach. Cp. also No. 281, 
where we placed the Lat. sol-ea, since it cannot be separated from 
solu-m (cp. Pott W. i. 1350). The rarity of the Greek words makes 
it impossible to decide. Cp. Fick 1°, 842. 


561. yadivd-s (Aeol. ydAuvvo-s). — Skt. khalina-s, khal- 
ina-s bit of the bridle (2). 


Benf. 1. 678, cp. il. 282, ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 336. — Boeht. and Roth in the 
‘Pet. Dict.’ expressly explain the Sanskrit words by ‘ dz¢ of a bridle,’ 
and prove by quotations that it was put into the mouth of the beast, 
and according to Pollux A 148 76 eis ro ordua euaddduevoy was called 
xarwos, hence T 393 ev d€ xarwovrs yaudnrjs ¢€Badrov, so that in later 
writers yadvvdés could also mean the ‘corner of a horse’s mouth,’ and the 
‘fangs of snakes.’ Hence the identity of the two words is certain, but 
A. Weber ‘Beitr.’ iv. 278 regards khalina-s as borrowed from the 
Greek ; and he is not without support from other Sanskrit scholars. 
From this point of view the isolated position and the varying quantity 
of the word are worth notice. Hence the note of interrogation. Origin 
unknown. 


562. WwtdAAa, WvdAdXo-s flea. — Lat. pul-ex. — OHG. floh. 
— ChSl. bli-cha, Lith. blu-sd. 


Pott 17.87, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 50, Corssen i?. 549, Fick 1°. 148. 
— The identity of the creature, which in all four families of speech is 
denoted by a labial and J, establishes the unity of the name: but a 
difference in the formation must be admitted. The Lat. -ex (st. ec, ic) 
is individualising, as in cul-ew, sen-ex, and finds its analogue in the h 
of the German word. The Slavo-Lith. form shows an s— for ChSl. 
ch=s—and a softened initial letter. Perhaps sp was the original 
initial sound (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr,. iv. 36). We shall find on p. 699 > for 
a presenting itself in some other words as a metathesis of sp. — Skt. 
palr-s ‘louse’ (Benf. i. 576) and pulaka-s, which among its many 
meanings has that of a kind of vermin, I prefer to omit here. — Misteli 
‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 169. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 455 


563. @dévn elbow, @r€é-Kpavo-v (drAéExpavov Aristoph. Pax 
443) the point (head) of the elbow, ” 2X«vo-s. — 
Lat. ulna. — Goth. aleina, OHG. elina miyus, 
cubitus. — Corn. elin ulna (Z?. 1066); Olr. wile 

(dat. du. for a dtb n-ulendaib) ulna. 
Pott 14. 117, Benf. ii. 305, Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voce.’ ii. 309, Stokes ‘ Ir. 
Gloss.’ p. 149. — Originating from the same rts. ar, al, with different 
suffixes, but a similar meaning, we have Skt. ardlas ‘ bent,’ ‘the bent 


arm, aratni-s ‘elbow’ (cp. also Lat. ar-cu-s), Lith. al-ki-neé ‘ elbow’ 


olekti-s ‘ell’=ChSl. lakiti, Gk. ddaké mixvs "A@aydvev Hesych., for 
which M. Schmidt p. 129, probably with justice, writes dé, to observe 
the alphabetical arrangement. Cp. odddv (for dd-vo-v 1?) rHv Tod Bpa- 
xloves kaymnv.— The Irish wile is a stem in nn (nd), cp. Z’. 268. 
‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ p. 166 gives for this willind, certainly not the 
original nominative form, and with an unjustified W/. On the other 
hand in the ace. plur. na hulle ‘ ulnas’ ‘Gild. Cor. Gloss.’ 163 the 72 
has come from Jn. 


= 


Greek o in the following instances corresponds to an 
Indo-Germanic s, which in the other languages is as a rule 
retained, but in Latin between two vowels has almost 
invariably passed into vr. In the same position the sibilant 
is regularly dropped in Greek: while at the beginning of 
a word before a vowel it passes into the spiritus asper. 
In Irish s is retained only in groups of consonants and at 
the beginning of a word; between vowels it is lost. 

564. Root éc ef-ui (Aeol. €u-yi = éop), 3 sing. éo-ri, ev- 

eg-7# well-being, éc-0-Ad-s excellent, €-d-s good. 

Skt. ds-mi sum, ds-tt est, s-at being, good, su- 
(prefix)=ev-, sy-as-té-s well-being. — Zd. ah-mi 
sum, ac¢-ti est, anh-u lord, world. 

Lat. (e)s-u-m, es-t, s-on(t)-s, sont-icu-s. 

Goth. 7i-m, ts-t, sunji-s, ON. sann-r true, guilty. 

Lith. es-mi, és-ti, ChSl. yes-mit, jes-tt, Lith. es-a-ba 
being, es-ni-s constant, sure. 

OlIr. am sum, ts est, it sunt (Z?. 487); su-, so- bene 
in so-nirt firmus, fortis (nert vis, valor), su-thain 
perpetuus (tan tempus, Z’. 863). 


456 BOOK II. 


Bopp ‘GL. Pott W. ii. 2, 228, Benf. i. 25, Grimm ‘Gr.’ i. 1070, 
Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 183, ii. 137, Stokes ‘Ir. Gloss.’ p. 127. — The Skt. 
ds-u-s ‘breath of life,’ dsu-ra-s ‘living,’ and ds, dsdn (n.) as-jd-m 
‘mouth,’ which is quite parallel to Lat. 6s, make it almost certain 
that the physical meaning of this very ancient verbum substantivum 
was ‘breathe,’ ‘respire. According to Renan ‘De lOrigine du 
Langage’ p. 129, éd. 4me) the Hebrew verb. subst. haja or hawa 
has the same fundamental meaning. The three main meanings are 
probably developed in the following order: ‘ breathe,’ ‘live,’ ‘be.’ 
So Max Miller ii. 349. The distinction of this root from the synony- 
mous bhu, Gk. gv (No. 417) —a distinction traceable in many lan- 
guages — suits this view. Rt. as denotes, like respiration, a uniform 
continuous existence: rt. bhw on the other hand a becoming. 
Hence the two roots supplement each other, so that the former is 

376 used exclusively in the durative forms of the present-stem, the 
second especially in the tenses which, like the aorist and the perfect, 
denote an incipient or a completed process of becoming (é-v-v, mé-gu- 
ka, fu-t). In all languages but Greek, however, the rt. bhw also has 
faded into a simple verbum substantivum. This satisfies the objec- 
tions of Tobler ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 254.— The differing view of Ascoli 
(‘Framm. linguist.’ iv. p. 20) and Schweizer (‘Ztschr.’ xvii. 144), 
which rests especially on Skt. ds-ta-m ‘home’ (adv.), according 
to which the rt. as had as its fundamental meaning ‘stand,’ ‘ linger,’ 
does not at all suit Skt. ds-w-s, dsu-ra-s. ds = 6s may have origi- 
nated in as, just as well as vak = vde from vak (Max Miiller ‘ Asiat. 
Society’ March 1868 p. 35), while the assumption that ds is con- 
tracted from avas or akas is not established by any striking example. 
—It is but a short step from the diving to the real, thence to the 
true, and to that which realizes the purpose of its existence, the good. 
On é-i-s (Ep. 7-v-s) for éc-v-s, in the neut. contracted to «dé, see 
‘Rhein. Mus.’ 1845 p. 245 ff; we must reject, however, what is said 
there about the German wahr. Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 33 tries to show 
traces of su- ‘good,’ in European languages. I do not see any 
decisive reason for separating ¢v and sw, as many scholars have 
attempted to do. The n of jv-s (st. jo-d-s) is to be taken like that 
of 76-0-s.— With the Skt. partic. s-at is connected No. 208 ér-ed-s = 
sat-jd-s. Whether éo-6-d6-s (Dor. éo-dd-s) comes directly fromthe 
root, or, as Kuhn holds (‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 30), from a stem éor = Skt. sat, 
I do not attempt to determine. Further éro-po-s, like @rv-yo-s, must 
have meant originally ‘real,’ ‘ready;’ the latter seems immediately 
comparable to the Skt. sattud-m ‘reality,’ ‘ existence,’ ‘truth’ The — 
Lat. sons has been discussed under No. 208. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 457 


565. Root éc Fec év-vu-ye clothe, ef-ya tudr-.o-v dress, 
éo-O0-s, éo-0-7(7)-s clothing, €¢-dv0-s (¢fdvé-s) 
clothes, €-&é-s covering round, pliant (?). 

Skt. rt. vas (vds-é) put on, vds-man cover, vds-ana-m, 
vds-tra-m clothes. — Zd. vanh to clothe, vanh-ana 
(n.), vac-tra (n.) clothes. 

Lat. ves-ti-s, vesti-o. 

Goth. ga-vas-jan to clothe, vas-ti clothes. 


Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 2, 481.—F is clearly seen in karaeivvcapy 
(Wy 135) emepevos, emiécacda, ééoaro (‘Greek Verb’ p. 80), in the Aeol. 
yeu-pata = Feo-para, Dor. yi-ya, yeo-tpa’ orodn (Hesych.), Lacon. Béo- 
ro-v (Hi. M.), Cypr. veou-s, cp. p. 564, Knos 103 ff., and Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 
31, ‘Dor.’ 46. For the perf. eiua: cp. ‘Greek Verb’ p. 421: for inarioy 
below p. 712. The two forms of éavd-s, differing only in the quantity 
of the a, are discussed by Buttmann ‘ Lexilog.’ ii. 11. The adjective 
éayé-s surprises us by its a (Harder ‘De a vocali apud Homerum 
producta’ p. 24), and also shows in Homeric verse no certain trace 
of the fF. Hence the note of interrogation. — The rt. Fes ‘ clothe’ 
agrees with that discussed under No. 206, which means ‘dwell,’ in 
the common notion of ‘a protecting surrounding.’ — This and the 
foregoing root are discussed thoroughly by Hainebach ‘Die Wurzeln 
FE and EZ’ Giessen 1860, with many precise deductions and striking 
remarks. — From the Keltic, Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ villi. 338, 344 has com- 377 
pared with this root OlIr. efiwth ‘vestitus,’ étach ‘ vestis,’ which 
Windisch ‘Beitr.’ viii. 435 will not admit. It would be better to 
think of Corn. and Cymr. guise ‘ vestimentum’ (Z’. 1078). 


566. €omepo-s evening (subst. and adj.), éo7épa evening, 
éamép-lo-s, €omrep-ivd-s of evening. — Lat. vesper, 
vespera, vesper-tinu-s. — Lith. vdkara-s, ChSl. 
vecerm% evening, vecer-int éomepiwds. — Cymr. 
ucher, Corn. gurth-uher, Olr. fescor vespera 
(Z?. 781, 828). 


Pott W. ii. 2, 352, Fick i°. 781. — The explanation from divas-para 
‘the end of the day,’ suggested by Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 190, and 
approved by Benf. ii. 208, must be abandoned, if only because of the 
Slavo-Lith. words. As p comes from &, but not & from », these 
take us back to a primitive form vas-kara-s. Hence in Latin, here 
as well as in dupu-s (No. 89), the rare representation of a k by a p 
must be admitted. For the F in the Aeol. Féomepe Ahrens ‘ Aecol.’ 
32. In Homer we have pévov & émi €omepov ehOciv 8 786 and the like. 


458 BOOK {I. 


— As vas-a-ti-s means in Skt., ‘spending the night,’ ‘nest,’ ‘ lodging,’ 
we may see here the rt. vas ‘dwell’ (No. 206) in the sense of ‘ turn 
in, ‘retire. Perhaps the Teutonic West also belongs here. In a 
similar sense we shall find the rt. Fes under No. 587. — Ir. espar-tain 
‘eventide, Corn. gwespar, Cymr. gosper ‘ vespera, are borrowed from 
the Latin. 


567. Root rec ¢é-w (late (év-vu-yi perf. m. €-¢eo-par aor. 
act. ¢éc-ce-v) seethe, bubble, ¢éc-ua, (é-a de- 
coction, ¢é-c1-s seething, boiling, ¢eo-76-s sodden, 
¢7j-Ao-s ardor. 

Skt. rt. jas (jds-ja-mi, jds-d-mi), bubble, seethe, 
fatigue oneself, d-jas exert oneself, prd-jas-ta-s 
boiling over (d7ep(éwr). 

OHG. jés-an, ger-ja-n ferment [gdren], ModG. 
Gisch-t [or Gdasch-t] yeast, froth. 


. Benf, 1. 681, Pott W. ii. 2, 453, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 137, Roth ‘ Ni- 
rukta, Erliuter.’ p. 78, Fick i*. 731.— For ¢= 7 see p. 625. The 
less physical meaning of the post-Homeric (jos has its precedent in 
the use of the verb ¢éo. The a of the Dor. ¢ados, which Diintzer 
‘Ztschr. xvi. 281 opposes to my etymology, finds its explanation in an 
older rt. ¢as, which is preserved also in (adn ‘tossing of the sea,’ 
(ados, (add-w: and further, the rule, good enough for practical pur- 
poses, that a in the Doric dialect is to be expected only in the place 
of an 7 which has come from a, is liable to important exceptions from 
the well-known fact that even ¢ in various dialects not uncommonly 
appears in the older form ofa. Déderlein ‘ Gl.’ 2450 refers to this root 
also the Homeric (w-pé-repov (dxparérepov Apoll. ‘Lex.’) xépae 1 2038, 
which might indeed very well mean jfervidius. Pott, who discusses 
this root ii”. 805, refers to on 1d émave tod pédcros (Hes.), which, if 
taken as ‘froth, ‘foam, suits well here. Cp. Hesych. ¢etovaar 
adppifovaoay, 


568. Root He 7-ya, jo-rar sit.— Skt. ds (ds-é) sit, stay, 
dwell, 3 sing. ds-té, ds-a-m seat, ds-ana-m sedes. 
—Zd. dh sit, remain. — Lat. d-nu-s, OLat. Umbr. 
ds-a, Ose. aas-a, NLat. dir-a. 

378 = Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 299. — For the forms of fua cp. ‘Greek 
Verb’ p. 103. The spiritus asper originating in the lenis is dis- 
cussed on p. 687. In this case the resemblance in sound to the 
words of kindred meaning &a, cica (rt. £5 No. 280) may have favoured 
the sharp aspiration. Hence it is not admissible to separate rt. #s 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 459 


from ds and to attach it to rt. vas ‘ dwell,’ as Hainebach wishes to do 
in the essay mentioned under No. 565 p. 18. Benfey i. 418 derives 
jo-vxo-s from this root in the sense of sedatus, a derivation well 
supported by the meaning of the word. Lobeck ‘ Proleg.’ 339 quotes 
adjectives similarly formed. Even #-pepo-s ‘tame,’ perhaps properly, 
‘dwelling with, as it were ‘settling down with, may be derived 
from this root by means of the suffix -yepo = Skt. mara (ad-mard-s 
‘greedy,’ rt. ad = Gk. é5 No. 279), discussed by Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 
i. 480. For the rt. jam ‘restrain, from which Bopp ‘GI.,’ Kubn 
‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 320 derive jjpepo-s, shows a different initial sound in ¢yp-ia. 
— Perhaps the Lith. as-la ‘ floor’ belongs here; this would be analo- 
gous to the Hom. ciayern (also eiayern, iauevrn in Hesych. and in other 
forms), ‘low ground’ ( = é-a-pevn), for Classen’s explanation of this 
word as ‘the clothed,’ from No. 565, poetical as it is, seems to me 
improbable for so ancient a word (‘ Beobacht. tib. den hom. Sprach- 
gebrauch, 2 Theil, Frankf. 1855 p. 10). — Besides the Theocritean 
neva ev xopo (xill. 40, cp. Van. 77) strongly supports the rt. js.— 
The meaning prevalent in the Skt. ds attaches itself exceptionally 
also to the form ds-ta-m ‘home,’ which evidently belongs rather here 
than to the rt. as in its usual sense. Could as ‘breathe,’ and ds ‘ sit’ 
be linked by the intermediate notion ‘stop for breath’ ?— With 
regard to the Italian words for ‘altar’ it is noteworthy that Skt. ds 
(‘ Pet. DY i. 729) is also used of men praying and sacrificing at the 
altar. Otherwise Fick i°. 503. 


569. ico-s (for FioFo-s) Aeol. tcoo-s [Att. ico-s] equal. 
— Skt. vishu (adv.) to both sides, vishuva-m 
aequinoctium, vishu-vdnt holding the middle. 


Pott 1°. 272, Benf. ii. 222. An initial F is proved by the Hom. 
fem. éion, by yerydv* ivov, Lacon. Biap’ irws (Hesych.). That the o has 
displaced a consonant following it, is shown by the Aeolic form 
(Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 66), to which belong also tocos* yakjyn (ep. Goth. vis 
n. ‘calm of the sea, Fick 1°. 787), icodoGau' xnpotoba (ep. ion) and 
perhaps also *Icca’ 7} AéoSos rd mpdrepov (Hesych.). From yoydv we 
can see that this consonant was a second digamma. Now the stem 
Fuofo so arrived at is identical with Skt. vishuwva (for visva), an 
expansion of vishu (for visu), like that of rodv to modXo, 1. €. mod Fo. 


570. odo-s, o60-s, oc@o-s, o&-s whole, sound, o@-xo-s_ 
strong, oad-w, odé-¢-m (more correctly cow) 
heal, save, cw-7#p saviour, &-cw-To-s past heal- 
ing. — Lat. sd-nu-s. 

Benary ‘ Lautl.’ 235, and after him Benfey i. 360, compare Skt. sah- 


4€0 BOOK It. 


ja-s ‘strong,’ séh-ja-m ‘soundness.’ In that case sagh would be the 
root, but Gk. x is hardly ever dropped before vowels. Pictet ‘ Ztschr.’ 
vy. 38 agrees with this view. — The different vowels of the adjective 
are treated by Lobeck ‘El.’ 11. 121. Among the numerous proper 
names belonging here Sas, the name of a Nereid, hence ‘saving 

379 goddess, is noteworthy (Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 272).—It seems to me 
somewhat bold to base this group on rt. és (No. 564) with a lost 
vowel (cp. Skt. s-mas = sumus). It is better not to go beyond sa as 
the root-syllable, from which probably come also, by means of an . 
expanding ¢, sacer and sanctus, sancio. The retention of the initial 
o leads us to conjecture the loss of a consonant. For sac-er, sanc-io 
Fick 11°. 284 conjectures art. svak ‘to make firm.’ 


571. Root ca od-o, o7-6- sift, c7-0-Tpo-v sieve. — Lith. 
sijé-j-u sift, sé-ta-s sieve (rt. 82). 

Pott W. i. 306, Benf. 1. 398 f., Fick 11°. 256.— A late by-form 
of cijorpov is owio-v (owdgo ‘sift, ep. Brugman ‘Stud.’ v. 232). 
#0-w (70é-@, 7O-yd-s) ‘strain,’ ‘filter’ is identical with o76-o. The 
replacement of the o by the spir. lenis instead of by the spir. asp. is 
explained, as in the case of ¢y-«, by the following aspirate (Lobeck 
‘Rhem.’ p. 93). As sowing is a ‘sifting scattering, the rt. sa, 
which is wide-spread in several families of speech (sa-tu-s sé-vt, sé-men 
= OHG. samo, pres. se-r-0 =se-s-0, Goth. saian, ChSl. sé-ja-ti, Lith. 
sé-ju ‘sow, Olr. stl, Cymr. hil ‘semen,’ yd hewyt ‘satum est’ Z?. 
123) might also be akin. (Cp. No. 389.) Pictet ii. 99, 286, connects 
AS. si-bi, OHG. stb [sieve].— In any case we might conclude even 
from the Greek forms that the weaker si stood by the side of the 
full rt. sa. Perhaps with Fick sa is to be traced back to sja, whence 
the retention of the o. For d.a-rrav Att. = d:a-o7ndew see p. 667. — 
For different Latin forms belonging here, especially Sa-e-turnu-s, 
for Sa-je-tur-nus, Sd-turnu-s, pro-sa-p-ia (with expanding p) and 
others more or less certain, see Corssen i*. 417 ff., ‘ Italische Sprach- 
kunde’ 313 ff.— Biicheler in Polle ‘De artis vocabulis Lucretianis ’ 
p- 57 adds sae-clu-m as ‘seed,’ ‘race,’ with great probability. Cp. 
Goth. mana-séth-s ‘ seed of men,’ ‘ world.’ 

572. oiy-7 silence, oiya (adv.) silently, ctyd-@ am silent, 
atyn-do-s silent. — ON. sveig-ja flectere [ep. 
sway|; OHG. swihhan weary, swigén be silent, 
pass away. 

Pott W. ui. 356, Benf. i. 464, Grassmann xii. 136, Fick 1°. 843, 
Bugge ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ iii. 108 f.—I repeat this comparison in spite 
of the anomalous relation of the sounds, regarding Gk. y as softened 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. - 461 


from x (cp. rt. kay No. 367) and giving svik as the primitive form, 
from which a Teutonic svih, svig would be explained. — Of Greek 
dialectic forms we find ‘ya’ ovdma Kimpior (Hesych.), for which it is 
perhaps more correct to read with M. Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 367 tya, and 
the still more remarkable piya’ cima, to which we return on p. 455. 


572b. ot-w77H (for ot-oFw7-7) silence, c1w7déo to be silent. 
— MHG. swif-t silent, still, OHG. gi-swiftdn 
conticescere, MHG. swiften hush up [Germ. 
schwichtigen silence, schwichtgeld hush-money |. 
— OIr. socht silence, sochtaim I am silent. 


Fick 1°. 843. — Add oim-ra* oiuita Meodmi Hesych., which quite 
agrees with the German words. A very important form is cordo= 
ciordo, Sicwmdcopa Pind. ‘Ol.’ 13, 91. Bergk. ‘ Lyrici*’ 137 adds 
evoonia’ novxia, drawve’ o1ora (cod. draves* orav) Hesych. Add also 
the ModGk. cara = cima. A connexion with rt. svap ‘sleep’ (No. 
391) is not improbable. ot-cfor-7 resembles ¢d-wd-7, dy-wy-7.— 
Ir. socht is one of the words which, like secht ‘seven, have changed 
an original pt into cht: cp. ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 16. 


573. Root cxar oxdé¢-» limp. — Skt. rt. khaftg (for 380 
skang), khdénig-a-mi limp, khafig-a-s limping. — 
MHG. hink-e, han-c limping. 


Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 429, ‘ Pet. D.’ ii. 588 f., where, tnter alia, khanga 
is quoted as the name of an unevenly constructed metre (cp. cxdtor). 
— The primary form is skag, nasalized skang. Hence has come, by 
the change of g before 7 into d, Gk. oxdfo, 1.e. oxad-j- (cp. pét- rt. 
Fpey No. 141); ‘Greek Verb’ p. 226. Pott W. ii. 106. The German 
form came from the initially abbreviated kang, with the regular 
shifting of the mutes (cp. No. 113); the unabbreviated form has 
been retained in the ON. shakk-r ‘limping’ (Fick 1°. 804, cp. Zimmer 
‘Suff. a’ 299), — As ON. cingim denotes ‘a stately striding in,’ it is 
doubtful whether it belongs here. 


574. c6Bn tail. — ON. svipa, OHG. sweif tail. 


Benf. i. 342, Kuhn u. 132, iv. 18. —I follow both in this com- 
parison only. For I am doubtful whether $68) ‘mane,’ by the 
side of od8n, was developed from *svab@. co8-é ‘scare,’ coB-apéd-s 
‘violent,’ and the gloss, on which some doubt is thrown by its posi- 
tion, wav-apd-s* co8-apd-s Hesych. in meaning come very near; and with 
these Usener ‘ Rhein. Mus.’ xx. 150, connects the almost obsolete 
subid u-s ‘excited,’ tn-sub-idu-s ‘securus, |[cp. Gell. xix. 9, 9, 
Gronoy., but Hertz reads subito in x. 11]. But if 8 was the final 


462 BOOK II. 


consonant of the root, neither ON. svif ‘motus repentinus, nor 
OHG. sweifan ‘ vibrare,’ which point to p, will fit in, though Fick i’. 
841 places them here. 


575. cougd-s spongy, damp. — Goth. svamm-s o7dy-yo-s, 
OHG. swam, ON. svdépp-r, Goth. svwm-sl pond 

(Eng. swamp). 

Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 17, who rightly goes back to a stem svam, from 
which other Teutonic words (OHG. swimmam, etc.) may also be 
derived. From this we also derive (with him) of¢y-yo-s with the 
by-forms oméy-yo-s, omoyy-ed, in which fF has either, as in the pro- 
nominal stem ode = sva become hardened to 4, or, as probably in the 
form Nicro-s No. 544, to . The suffix might have been softened from 
-xo. Corssen i’, 161 is probably right in regarding fungu-s as a bor- 
rowed word, on the ground of the f, which in no other case comes 
from v. Pott W. 11. 2, 224. 


576. ordeyy-i-s, creAy-i-s, orepy-i-s iron for rubbing or 
scraping. — Lat. strig-zli-s. 

For the three Greek forms, of which the last comes nearest to 

the Latin, see Lobeck ‘El.’ i. 502, ‘Rhemat.’ 55. The root certainly 


cannot be separated from that of the Lat. string-o (No. 577).— 
Benf. 1. 671. 


577. orpayé (st. orpayy) drop, orpayy-ev-w force 
through, orpayy-déAn, orpayyad-.é string, knot, 
oTpayyad-i-¢-» strangle. — Lat. string-o, stric- 
tu-s, stric-ti-m, stric-tura, strig-mentu-m, strig-a, 
strang-ulare, terg-o. — OHG. stric, strang, strangi 
strong. 


The rt. strang, strag, for we may assume this (Pott W. iii. 687), 
has two main meanings ‘draw through,’ ‘force through’ and ‘strip.’ 
The former comes out clearly in the Greek words, of which 
otpayy-oupia ‘retention of urine,’ xara orpdyya peiv may also be men- 
tioned. From this the cognate meaning of ‘ tying together,’ ‘ press- 
ing’ is easily developed, and this comes out with especial clearness in 
stringo- (for streng-o), nodus strictus, vitem perstringere: the Germ. 

381 streng ‘ rigorous,’ ‘ rough,’ sich anstrengen ‘ to exert one’s self,’ with the 
Hom. otpevy-o-par ‘to be pained, ‘to grow exhausted,’ are not far 
removed. With respect to the connexion of orpedvy-o-wa it is worth 
noticing that the cod. Harl. in » 351 gives the variant orpéyyeobae 
(‘yp orpéyyecOa’), and the same word is explained in Schol. A on © 
0 512 by orpayyi{ecOa. Cp. Lob. ‘Rhem.’ 54.— The second main 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 463 


meaning meets us in usages like ‘ folia ab arboribus, oleam, bacam strin- 
gere;’ with this is connected No. 576 with the Ch8Sl. strug-a-ti or 
striig-a-ti ‘radere:’ striga ‘stroke,’ ‘ swath’ (Fest. 314) is also akin, 
and tergo for sterg-o is connected, cp. Leo Meyer i. 190, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 
437. — The forms compared by Lobeck, orpayyés, orpoyyidos ‘ curved,’ 
might possibly come from the first main meaning in the sense of 
‘forced,’ ‘wrested.’ Pictet ii. 171 is perhaps right in his conjecture 
that oapydvn ‘plait,’ ‘wickerwork’ with rapydva’ moxal, cuvdeoes, 
Terapyaveopévar’ éumendeypéva (Hesych.) came from this root in the form 
starg. Cp. tupBn and ovpBy No. 250. It is worth noticing for this 
the Ir. sreangaim ‘stringo, sreang ‘string,’ (srengais ‘ traxit,’ Stokes 
‘ Beitr.’ viii. 343: Ir. initial sr=original sér is not one of the firmly 
established phonetic equations.) But I cannot admit any connexion 
with orpépo. — Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 25 f. groups some of the words 
here compared with the Skt. rt. sarg, for which he establishes the 
meaning ‘stretch. — Cp. Joh. Schmidt ‘ Voc.’ 1. 54, Fick 1°. 826, — 
Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viil. 343 adds here Iv. tracht ‘strength.’ 


578. Root cu xac-cv-w (kat-Tv-w) patch, cobble, fix the 
warp, Kdo-ov-ya (kdt-rTv-pa) leather, cobbler’s 
work, xarrv-s piece of leather. 

Skt. rt. siv (stv-ja-mi) sew, sjii-td-s sewn, s/t-ti-s 
sewing, sju-man seam, band. 

Lat. su-o, sii-tu-s, sii-tor, su-tura, st-téla device, su- 
b-ula awl. 

Goth. stu-ja émippdémro, OHG. siud (m.) sutura, 
sou-m seam, sui-la subula. 

ChSl. sij-a (inf. si-tt) pdmro, Si-lo subula, Lith. 
siuv-e (inf. sit%-ti) sew, sit-ta-s sewn, embroidered. 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 1346, Benf. 1. 290, Diefenb. 1. 217. — We 
may take siw as the Indo-Germanic, sw as the Graeco-Italic root. 
Grassmann ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 5 regards this sew or stv» perhaps correctly, 
as an expansion of rt. s? ‘bind’ (No. 602). We might be disposed to 
derive the first part of xac-cv-w from the form kds* dépya (Hesych.) 
discussed by Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ 80, 177, did not the law of Greek 
composition recommend us rather to conjecture the apocope of xara, 
a process not surprising in a word of such daily use. There are 
similar mutilations of card in kdrées (Eur. ‘Cycl. 544), xavdfas 
(Hes. ’E. 666), in the Hom. xcaBBare with the v. |. kduBare, kaoyebe= 
xaréeocxe, a similar forgetfulness of the composition in exddevdov, Cp. 
Baunack ‘ Stud.’ x. 109 ff. karri@ like dcarrav (No. 571). — ‘ suere 


4.64 BOOK II. 


the very ancient word for working in leather’ Hehn.? 15.—Cp. No. 
560. 


579. ad-s, b-s pig. — Zd. hu (m.) pig. — Lat. si-s. — 
OHG. sti sow, Goth. sv-ein yotpos. — Chl. 
sv-inija bs. — OCymr. huce sus, Corn. hoch 
porcus (Z?, 91, 1075). 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. i. 1327, Miklosich ‘Lex.,’ Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viil. 
343, Bacmeister ‘Kelt. Briefe’ 39.— The Gothic word is a parallel 
to su-inu-s, and may be compared in another way with the stem of 
the feminine otawa (=ov-av-ta), dawa (Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 384): 
the Slavonic word has taken a second suffix. For the root we may 
appeal to the saying ‘sue nihil genuit natura fecundius’ (Cie. ‘De 
Nat. Deor.’ ii. 64), and conjecture the rt. sw ‘generare’ (No. 605) ; 
this seems to me, with Benfey i, 411 and Justi ‘ Handbuch des Zend’ 
326, more probable than that, as Bopp and Pictet i. 370 think, sw is 
to be taken as a natural sound (?), and Skt. sié-kard-s (rt. kar ‘make’ 
No. 72) to be explained as ‘the Su-maker:’ si#-kard-s (according to 
Lindner ‘ Altind. Nominalbildung’ p. 69 sukara-s) is rather a deriva- 
tive from the st. s% by means of the double suffix -ka-ra=Gk. xa-Xo, 
Lat. cu-lo (‘Studien’ i. 1, 260). Cp. oi-ca* is Adkaves, ov-B-po-s (cod. 
avpBpo-s) karpos Hes. Fick i*. 801 comes back to the old derivation 
from cevo, goovpat, so that oi-s would originally mean ‘rusher.’ — To 
é-s we may probably refer with Plutarch v-m-s vn ‘ ploughshare,’ 
which Jac. Grimm ‘Gesch.’ 57 discusses further. — The expansion in 
Cymr. hucc, huch, as in OCymr. buch ‘ vacca’ Z?. 295. Eng. hog is a 
borrowed word: cp. Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ 11. 175. 


580. od (st. chnx) wasp. — Lat. vespa. — OHG. wefsa. 
— Lith. vapsd gadfly, Lett. apsa, ChSl. osa, vosa 
wasp (?). 

Pott 114, 112, Forstemann ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 50, Kuhn ii. 66. Grimm 
‘Gr.’ ui. 366 holds the Teutonic word to be borrowed from the Latin. 
— The connexion of these words is as probable as their explanation 
is difficult. Perhaps the full stem-form was vaspa, to which the Lat. 
vespa comes nearest; this form would appear in Gk. as Feora, and 
with an individualizing « (cp. i€pa-&, ptpun-é by the side of ptpyo-s No. 
482) would give Feorax, from which with the loss of the first syllable 
(cp. tpdmea for terpame(a) we might get oak Ion. onyx, and, with the 
aspiration not uncommon near a oa, ofyk (cpdddo rt. spal No. 558, 
aopdpayos by dondpayos). In the northern languages we must assume 
metathesis. The root is unknown. — The conjecture of Joh. Schmidt 
(‘Ztschr.’ xxii, 314) that opjé belongs rather to the Lat. fucu-s 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 465 


‘drone’ is opposed by what Fick ‘ Ztschr.’ xxii. 102 ff. brings forward 
against the equivalence of the Lat. f and the Gk. oz, of.— Cp. Fick 
¥. 769. 


p= 
boy 


— 


A Greek £€ corresponds to an Indo-Germanic ks, for 
which ksh is to be expected in Sanskrit, hs (chs) in the 
Teutonic languages, ss or s (ch before ¢) in Old Irish. 

581. adé€-w keep off, help, dd\eé-n-r7p helper. — Skt. 
rdksh-a-mi guard, keep, deliver, raksha-s, raksh- 
aka-s watcher, defender, radksh-ana-m defence. 

Bopp ‘Gl. Pott W. ii. 2, 455. — An expansion of the rt. ark, alk 383 
treated under No. 7, by the addition of an s, so that dde€ and Skt. 
raksh both go back to arks. Cp. above p. 64. 

582. dEwy (st. a€ov) axle. — Skt. dksha-s axle, wheel, 
cart. — Lat. axi-s. — OHG. ahsa. — ChSl. osz%, 

| Lith. aszi-s axle. — Cymr. echel axle. 

Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. iii. 375, Benf. i. 67, Stokes ‘ Beitr. vill. 343, 
‘Pet. Dict.,’ where the meaning ‘axle’ is established for the Skt. word. 
— dp-aéa, older dy-aga (like the Hom. dyvdis), points to the noun- 
stem retained in Skt. and German; dy- is however certainly for dua 
(No. 449). We may with Pott ii”. 590 consider dé as an expanded dy 
(No. 117). 

583. até-m (Hom. dé€é-w), avé-dv-m increase, multiply, 
av&é-n, avé-n-ol-s, avé-n-ywa growth. — Skt. wksh- 
ad-mti grow up, grow strong, perf. va-vdksh-a, 
caksh-aja-mi_ augeo. — Lat. auax-ili-um increase, 
strengthening. — Goth. vahs-ja wax, vahs-tu-s 
avénas. — Lith. duksz-ta-s (or dugsz-ta-s) high. 
— Olr. 6s, was super, in dchtur in superiore parte, 
wasal superus, nobilis, Cymr. uch supra, uchel 
altus, OGall. Uzxello-dunum Caes. (Z?. 125). 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 2, 462, Benf. i. 93.— Cp. No. 159, where 
the shorter roots vag, wg and aug were discussed. By the addition of 
an s (cp. p. 64) vag became vaks (Skt. vaksh) Gk. Fe, with a prothetic 
a afe&, with a ‘thinning’ from Fe to v av€ Cp. p. 579. The Vedic 
adjective vékhs-ana-s ‘strengthening’ is connected with the present 
avé-dvw. For aua-tli-u-m (‘ab auctu’ Varro ‘L. L.’ vy. 90) Van. 866, 

Hh 


466 BOOK II. 


Osthoff ‘Forsch.’ i. 208. — OIr. ro dsaiset drissi ‘the thorns grew’ 
(Z?, 464), might be for ro fasaiset, for the sound f disappears through 
the aspiration coming in after vo. In that case the later faisaim ‘ I 
grow, would not have a prothetic f (Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 343) and Ir. 
fas- might be compared with Skt. vaksh. 


583 b. é&, éx (Loer. é). — Lat. ex, ec, é. — ChSl. iz, Lith. 
isz out. — Or. ass, a, ess-, é- ex, echtar extra, imm- 
echtar extremitas. 


For the dialectic forms of é« see‘ Stud.’ x. 214.—It is as easy to see 
that these prepositions go together, as it is hard to trace the connexion 
completely. The clearest point is the connexion of the longer form 
e& (Boeot. Cypr. éos, Arcad. Thess. és) with Lat. ew, Ir. ass. These 
languages are also alike in their possession of an e& as well, which 
appears in the Lat. ec-fero, ec-fatu-s, ec se produnto (Cie. ‘De Legg.’ 
iii. 9, Vahlen ‘ Ztschr. f. d. dsterr. Gymn.’ 1860 p. 17), and in the Ir. 
ech-tar. From ek we may explain also Osc. eh-trad ‘extra, the h here 
replacing the tenuis as in saahtwm (Corssen ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 327). The 
mutilation of ec to @ was discussed on p. 77. A parallel to @ is 
supplied by the Umbr. ehe, eh, inasmuch as Umbr. h is often a mere 
sign of the length of the vowel (Aufr. u. Kirchh. i. 77). — The 

384 analogies collected on p. 37, of which ap, abs by the side of amd, ab is 
the clearest, leave hardly the possibility of a doubt that ek is the older 
form, ev one formed by the addition of a case-suffix. Hence every- 
thing would be as it should, did not the ChSl. form point to a media 
instead of a tenuis, while the Lith. (Schleicher ‘Lit. Gr.’ 279) presents 
no objection to this, as elsewhere a final z changes into the hard sz. 
Therefore, either in the Graeco-Italian language an original g must 
have been hardened under the influence of initial letters in its neigh- 
bourhood (éreive, exrivw), or in Slavonic an original & must have been 
softened. In the former case, which is to me the more probable, ag, 
eg would be the primary form, for which we might conjecture kinship 
with rt. ag (No. 117).— If Goth. ws (Germ. er-) is akin to the fuller 
ex, aS Diefenbach ‘ Wtb.’ i. 116 conjectures, it has lost the guttural 
before s (cp. on No. 538). — In opposition to earlier unsuccessful con- 
jectures as to Asiatic representatives of this particle Darmesteter 
(‘ Mém.’ ii. 307) recognises as such Zend ash ‘ very,’ and Skt. d¢karja-s 
‘wonderful’ (?), whence he arrives at a primary form *ask and at 
€ox-ato-s. This leaves the European forms without s obscure. —In 
Olt. the form ess-, é-, is prevalent in composition, especially in that 


forming nouns, when this preposition is used in a privative sense : 
es-rechtaid =‘ ex-lex’ Z?, 862. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 467 


584. €€ six, €x-ro-s. — Skt. shash sex, shash-thd-s sextus ; 
Zd. khshvas six. — Lat. sex, sex-tu-s. — Goth. 
saths, saths-ta(n). — Ch8l. Ses-té, Lith. szeszi sex, 
Ch8l. Ses-tyj, Lith. sz¢ész-ta-s sextus. — OlIr. sé 
sex, sessed sextus; Cymr. chwech sex, chuechet 
sextus. 

Bopp ‘Vergl. Gr.’ ii. 73, Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ ix. 432, Stier x. 238.— 
In addition to the traces of a v which the Zend form shows, and which 
are confirmed also by Armenian and Keltic forms, we have the 
most certain evidence of a Greek Féé. On the Heraklean tables we 
find FeEnkovra, Feaxaria, Féxros (Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 43), on an old Laco- 
nian inscription (C. i. No. 1511) according to Kirchhoff’s reading 
‘Studien z. Gesch. d. gr. Alphab.?’ p. 95 FEXE — —i.e. Fe&nxovra. 
Similarly on a Delphic inscription according to Wescher ‘ Annali dell’ 
Inst.’ 1866 (vol. 38) p. 1. In Homer, as is shown not only by Leo 
Meyer but also by Rumpf ‘Jahn’s Jahrb.’ 81 p. 681, Féé is indicated 
by passages like E 270 ray Fou Fe& eyévovro, though others are opposed 
to an initial consonant. Hence we must unconditionally assume svex 
as the primary Graeco-Italo-Keltic form: from this the Lat. sex de- 
veloped as se from sve, Gk. Fe like Fe from ofe. The origin of the 
numeral, and the guttural appearing in Zend before the sibilant, are 
not yet cleared up.— The Keltic languages allow us to see most 
clearly the primitive form svaks: Cymr. chw=an original sv, and in 
Trish beside sé, sessed there 1s the compound mér-feser ‘a large six’ 
=septem viri (Z?. 313). 


F. 385 


A Greek F is either proved to exist or is to be inferred 
in the following words, as the representative of an original », 
retained in the Keltic languages especially when initial 
(Ir. as f or 6, Brit. as gu, gw), in the other families preserved 
universally. | 

585. alés, alév (def) always, ai-dio-s everlasting, ai-ov 

lifetime, time, éa-ne-rav6-s lasting for all time (?). 
Skt. eva-s course, conduct, in the plur. custom, 
manners. 
Lat. aevu-m, ae-ta(t)-s (XII Tabb. aevitds), ae(vi)- 
ternu-s. . 
Goth. aiv-s time, aidy, aiv (adv.) unquam, aww-eins 
aiévios, OHG. éwa, law, contract, marriage. 
Hh a2 


468 BOOK II. 


OlIr. dis des dis (gen. disa disso) tempus, aetas ; 
Cymr. ots, oes, Corn. huis saeculum; Cymr. oet 
aetas, oetawe aetate provectus. 


All the forms of this adverb — which are numerous —are quoted 
by Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 378 f. At the head stands aifei C.i. No. 1: the 
derivative di-d.0-s (cp. payi-dio-s, puwvvOd-Si0-s) comes nearest to the 
Lesb. ai. ém-ne-ravd-s was discussed by me in ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 34. The 
preposterousness of the derivation from éros comes out clearly from 
such phrases as mduvol émneravot (¢ 86), xopid) emnerarvds (8 233). Doder- 
lein ‘Gloss.’ 1040 agrees with this. The Alexandrian grammarians 
are far removed from this absurdity, which only arose from the 
apparent similarity of émernowos, used in quite a different way 7 118, 
for they explain the word by cuveyis. \ é-ne-ravd-s, if really belonging 
here, is a formation like ép-npép-to-s, from the stem aifes, curtailed 
into ne, with the suffix -tana, which is employed in the same way in 
the Skt. ni-tana-s ‘present, and in the Lat. cras-tinu-s, diu-tinu-s 
Still the disappearance of the « now makes me hesitate: the Boeot. 
ni=aici furnishes no analogy, for the Boeotians use n for any a. — 
From the stem aif comes aif-oy, though we must admit that there is 
no authority for the digamma here, with an ampliative suffix like ~ 
dyx-ov from rt. dyk (dyxos), xeu-ov from xeiwa. The Skt. and Lat. 
words have come from this aiv with the addition of a short a: the 
Teutonic words belong to the same formation. A stem in s (aios) 
underlies the acc. até (Bekk. ‘Anecd.’ 363, Aesch. ‘Choeph.’ 346 [350 
Dind.] according to G. Hermann).— The greatest difficulties are 
caused by the relation of the Skt. @va-s (i.e. aiva-s), the meaning of 
which is thoroughly discussed by Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 232, to ad-s, 
which means as an adjective ‘living, as a masculine substantive, when 
oxytone, ‘man,’ when barytone, like Zd. dyu, ‘time of life,’ and to 
djus (n.) ‘life,’ ‘long life.’ Boethl. and Roth in the‘ Pet. Dict.’ separate 
these two words entirely from éva-s, conjecturing for aju, etc. a 
derivation from rt. an (1), for éva-s a derivation from rt. ¢ ‘go.’ Could 
not ajds be for “divas (=aifos) and so belong here after all? — OlIr. 
dis, dis is certainly to be traced back to *aivas-tu (Z?. 238, 787), and 

886 probably also Cymr. ozs, oes, Corn. huis. On the other hand Cymr. 
oet Corn. oys seems like Lat. aetas to have been formed without s: 
cp. Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 158, and Z’, 101, 292. 


586. Root af d-i-wm hear, perceive, é7-a-i-m understand, 
a-i-ra-s (Dor.) favourite. — Skt. rt. av (dv-a-mt) 
notice, favour, dv-as satisfaction, favour, dvi-s 
devoted. Zd. av turn to any one, protect. — 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.69 


Lat. au-di-o. — OIr. con-n-di qui servat, for-ta- 
com-ai-som servat id ille (Z?. 481). 


The wider meaning of d-i-o ‘mark’ (Heinr. Schmidt ‘Synon,’ i. — 
272) comes out especially in mAnyijs diovres (immo) A 532, whilst else- 
where this verb, which only occurs in the present stem (cp. Hesych. 
dere’ dxovoare), as a rule denotes perception by the ear. Now as Skt. 
av according to the ‘Pet. Dict.’ denotes both as a simple verb and also 
in composition with the prepositions wt and pra ‘to notice’ (otherwise 
Grassmann), I venture the comparison here given. - Pott’s objections W. 
i. 440,647 donotshake me in it. The ais prevalently short in Homer: 
the length is explained by the loss of the F, as in roxj-es for rokéF-es. 
As in i8-i- the « passes from the present stem into the formation of 
other words. — B. and R. compare with this same root Lat. av-e-o, the 
use of which connects itself with the meanings ‘to like,’ ‘to favour,’ 
especially in the imperative of salutation ave, while av-idu-s, au-d-am, 
av-aru-s are further removed, and perhaps even belong to No. 
587 (cp. rt. dv No. 419). But with avere even Varro ‘L. IL.’ vi. 83 
connects auris, quoting the verse of Ennius (‘Trag.’ 70 Vahlen): ‘Tam 
dudum ab ludis animus atque aures avent, Avide exspectantes nun- 
tium.’ Hence we get the notion of ‘noticing,’ ‘regarding,’ which occurs 
in Gk. dio. So it seems to me that we are justified in comparing it 
both with aw-dz-o and with the awr-?-s, od-s, which will have to be dis- 
cussed under No. 619. As au-dio shows a stem expanded by the addi- 
tion of d, so the post-Homeric aio in aic6-¢-c bat, aic6-dv-e-c Oa has arisen 
in the same way from df by the addition of 06, as di-c6-w ‘ breathe,’ 
has from the rt. af ‘ breathe.’ — Of Homeric epithets, it is easiest to 
connect with the rt. af in the sense.of avere év-n-ns (for év-nF-ns) for which 
the meaning ‘friendly,’ ‘ dear’ is established (Diintzer ‘Ztschr.’ xiii. 4). 
There is an objection to place here, as D. does, ér-n-rn-s, according to 
Arist. Adyios, and en-n-rv-s (p 306), on account of the disappearance of 
the F without leaving a trace. We should have then to assume an “ér- 
nFe-rn-s, from which came by contraction én-n-ry-s, like 7 from *Fe 
or arn from *dfarn (Pind. atdra).— To the meaning of ‘ affectionate, 
tender treatment,’ probably Lat. av-u-s, Goth. av-6 ‘ grandmother,’ 
and Lith. av-yna-s ‘avunculus’ attach themselves, corresponding to 
d-i-ra-s, Cp. Ocios under No. 310. So too Ascoli ‘ Ztschr.’ xi. 157. — 
Finally B. and R. compare further the Gk. d-o (d-pevac), with the 
usage of which Skt. av agrees in the meaning ‘to pamper one’s self,’ 
‘to satisfy one’s self.’ But this belongs to rt. ca (No, 608 b).— 
For the Keltic words cp. Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ viii. 344, where Cymr. ewe 
‘to listen’ is added. Ir. -67, -ai is to be immediately explained as 
Kavi. 


387 


4.70 BOOK II. 


587. Root &F &-o breathe, d-os' mvedua Hesych., d&n-pe 
blow, a7j-7n-s wind, d-edAa blast, av-pa breath, 
a-np (st. aFep) air, mist, d-i-c0-o breathe out, 
ad-¢-w breathe, dc6-yva heavy breathing. 

Skt. rt. wa (vd-mi) blow, va-ta-s, vd-jui-s wind, 
air; Zd. vd blow. 

Lat. ven-tu-s. 

Goth. vaia rvéw, vind-s dvepos. 

ChSl. vé-j-ati flare, Lith. vé-ja-s wind, 6-ra-s air, 
storm. 

Root av, Cymr. awel, Arem. auel, Corn. auhel 
aura, ventus; Root va, Olr. feth aura, tin-feth 
aspiratio (Z?. 817, 884). 


Bopp ‘GL.’ Pott W. i. 298, Benf. i. 262, Hugo Weber ‘Ztschr.’ x. 241. 
——For é@ Lobeck ‘ Rhemat.’ 4; many different deductions are supplied 
by Doderlein ‘G1’ 1 ff. We must start from a primitive form av, with 
the by-form va and also afe parallel to afeE (No. 583). For anp and 
dehda the Aeol. atnp (Ahrens ‘Aecol.’ 38) and at-ehda, Dor. ¢8np (Ahr. 
‘Dor.’ 49), Mod. Gr. dBépas i.e. dfépas (EH. Curtius ‘Gott. Nachr.’ 
1857 p. 301) are important. By the word d8yp the Laconians denoted 
an otknua orods €xov (Hesych.) from which it is probable that av-Ay 
‘court’ is also an offshoot from this root. Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 
537 compares the word with Skt. vas-ra-m ‘house,’ ‘ dwelling.’ With 
still more certainty we may refer here od-po-s, a masculine form, as it 
were, of av-pa, especially as o¥poy odv means ‘a wind-egg,’ and Lith. 
6-ra-s comes so near. The Lat. ventu-s, like Goth. vind-s, is perhaps 
to be taken as an expanded participial form. I do not attempt to 
decide whether awra is an inheritance from the Graeco-Italic time, or 
is borrowed from the Greek. The wind-instrument av-\d-s may be 
placed here with as little hesitation. So too the Skt. dham-dni-s, 
derived from rt. dham ‘ blow,’ means ‘ reed,’ ‘ pipe.’ — Further Lobeck 
regards dw déow deca as identical with dw djow, and establishes the 
transition from ‘breathing’ (the deep breathing of the sound sleeper, 
a very different thing from ‘ snoring,’ which a misrepresentation of 
the theory calls it), to the notion of ‘sleep,’ in a note, to which Schol. 
on y 151 and Aesch. ‘Choeph.’ 618 svéovra tmvm may be added. 
In a similar sense I have endeavoured (‘ Ztschr.’ i. 29) to establish 
i-av-o ‘sleep’ as a reduplicated present to the aor. d-e-ca. But as 
aéoat in Homer, as Leo Meyer ‘Ztschr.’ xxii. 530 has shown, means 
properly ‘remain’ (vixra . . . décapev), I have (‘Greek Verb’ p. 520) 
agreed with him that this aorist belongs to the rt. vas ‘dwell’ (No. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 471 


206): ep. on No. 566. The a is therefore prothetic. Add décxovro° 
dverravovro, éxoyovto Hesych. — i-av-w (Acol. dato), with the later aorist 
tadoa A 211 (cp. &-d6-cw) will go back to *i-ave-o.— Cymr. gwynt, 
Corn. guins ‘ ventus’ (Z?. 153) is a borrowed word, so Olt. aér, czar, 
Cymr. awyr ‘aer’ Z?. 1073: cp. Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 155. 


588. aiir-pyv (€), dv7-u7 breath, vapour, a7-yé6-s vapour, 
smoke. — Skt. &-mdn breath, soul, self. — OHG. 
dt-wm, OS. dth-om, AS. aed-m. [NHG. Athem.] 


Pott 1%. 196, Benf. i. 265, Grimm ‘ Wtb.’ i. 591, where the un- 
. changed ¢ of the OHG. form is also discussed, Grassmann ‘ Wtb.’ 
175.— Boehtl. and Roth wish to derive atmdn from rt. an (No. 419). 
Greek by-forms are supplied by der-pa* ddE, der-pd-v* mvedpa (Hesych.) 388 
for dferpa, dFerpov. d-r-yd-s is certainly contracted from *derpd-s, like 
doayev for décauev. For the juxtaposition of the vowels in dir-pjv (cp. 
dirn No. 588 b) see Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 277. — We saw on p. 62 that 
the word was probably derived from No. 587 and expanded by a ¢. 
588 b. call, cry (Hom. impf. ave, aor. fice, dioas), AUTH 
shout, airéw call, i-w(F)-7 voice, noise, dv-ew-s 
(for *av-aFo-s) dumb. — Lat. ovd-re rejoice, shout 
for joy, ovdtu-s shout of joy. 

Fick i°. 510, where the Ch8Sl. v-y-t ‘resound,’ ‘howl,’ (v instead 
of the spir. lenis), and the OHG. ww-da ‘owl, are added. —It is 
remarkable that the contracted form avo is confined to the present 
stem while the sigmatic tenses and the subst. air (Corcyr. Inscr., 
Cauer ‘Delectus’ No. 24, afurd) are never contracted. dvcoa is 


probably for *d-Fe-ca: (cp. Adf-ecoa). — I now prefer to separate these 
forms from df ‘ breathe.’ — Otherwise Corssen ‘ Altit.’ 407. 


589. €ap, Hp spring, éap-wd-s elap-.vd-s vernus. — Skt. 
vas-antd-s, Zd. vanh-ra (?) spring. — Lat. ver, 
ver-nu-s. — ON. vdér spring. — Lith. vas-ard 
(fem.) summer, vas-ar-ini-s summer (adj.), ChSl. 
VES-NA Eap. 

Pott it. 124, Benf. i. 309, Schleich. ‘ Ksl.’ 137, Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 
i. 350.—For F the gloss of Hesych. is of importance, yiapes’ gap, 
which Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 171 rightly regards as Boeotian and writes 
yiapos: we have also yedp* gap, BnpavOenov" vdpxiocos, ot d5é€ FnpavOepov 
Aéyovor (Hesych.). The fFéap thus established, which was afterwards 
contracted into jp, is evidently for Feo-ap, Lat. vér for veser or verer. 
The Sanskrit and the ChSl. words have arrived from the same 
root at the same meaning by the use of different suffixes. The r- 


389 


472 BOOK II. 


suffix which occurs in Gk., Lat., ON., and Lit. must be held to have 
been a primitive addition. For the root see above p. 42. In favour of 
the rt. vas ‘shine out’ is also Skt. vds-ard-s ‘early morning,’ ‘ day.’ 
Cp. Bergaigne ‘Mém.’ ii. 74.— To this Rhys ‘ Beitr.’ vil. 234, and 
Stokes ‘Beitr.’ viii. 344 refer OCymr. o guiannuin ‘vere, Corn. 
guain-toin ‘ver’ (Z*. 1058, 1073), reduced to *eisanténa: Stokes 
adds also Ir. errach ‘spring.’ Of the examples which Stokes gives 
for the loss of an initial v in Irish, excluding the borrowed espar- 
‘vesper, perhaps olann ‘wool’ (No. 496) is the only one which - 
cannot be contested. 


590. to-v (Fio-v) violet. — Lat. vio-la. 

Pott i. 120.— Benf. i, 314 compares Skt. visha-pushpa-m ‘the 
flower of the blue water-lily,’ and connects it with vishd-m ‘poison.’ This 
is. hardly credible, because of the meaning. Besides in that case we 
should have expected in Lat. *vir-ola. The F occurs in Hesych. 
yia’ dv6n, and also in the compound Aevkd-io-y and in the hiatus dépa 
toorepavay (Theogn. v. 250). Probably we may add the proper 
name "Idkn = viola with F on a vase (Wachsmuth ‘Rh. Mus.’ xviii. 
581).— Hehn* 224.— Fick ii®. 238 takes wi ‘to wind’ as the root. 

591. (-6-s poison. — Skt. vish-d-m, Zd. visha, vis vene- 
num, Skt. vish-d-s poisonous. — Lat. virus. — 
Ir. ft. 

Bopp ‘GL., Benf. i. 314, Stokes ‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ p. 79. The F 
does not occur in any existing Greek word, but both form and meaning 
point clearly enough to a primitive form visa-s. The difference of 
quantity is noteworthy; the z islong in Latin and Greek, short in Skt. 
In the ‘ Pet. Dict.’ the Skt. words are traced back to rt. vish ‘work,’ 
‘execute;’ otherwise Fick 1°. 221.— From id-s Lobeck ‘Rhem.’ 157 
derives idoua, iaivw ‘nam et pdppaxov dicitur in utramque partem. 
Otherwise Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 50, Pictet ‘ Orig.’ i. 64. It is against 
this view that in Homer iac@a. means ‘tend,’ and is used either with 
the ace. of the person (iar Etpimvkov M 2) or of the part affected 
(6pOarpdv « 525). — Pott W. 1. 286, 11. 2, 484. Fick 1°. 509 attrac- 
tively compares idouac with Skt. ishdja-ti ‘he strengthens,’ ‘ refreshes,’ 
and Bugge ‘ Bezzenb. Beitr.’ 111. 116 confirms this by connecting the 
ON, LHir ‘the goddess of healing,’ and ew ‘mercy,’ evra ‘to spare.’ 

592. ts pl. iv-es sinew, strength, iv-fo-y nape of the 
neck, */gi-s, ¢-dc with strength, igia para 
strong sheep. — Lat. vi-s pl. vir-es for vis-es. 


The many difficulties which stand in the way of this comparison, 
which seems so free from objections, are discussed by Pott W. i. 559 — 


; REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 473 


without result. But as F is retained in the proper name Fiduros and © 
traces of it are to be found in Homer (Knos 127), as Hesych. gives the 
gloss yis* inds kat yj (2) kai ioyd’s, and as there is evidence of the 
initial labial for icyd-s — which cannot be separated from is — in the 
Lacon. Bicxuy by the side of yicyu» (Hesych.), we must assume, as it 
seems, a Graeco-Italic stem vi. This perhaps originating immediately 
in the rt. vi ‘plait’ (No. 593) meant in the first place ‘ band,’ ‘ cord,’ 
then like nervu-s (No. 434) ‘sinew, ‘strength. This stem was 
expanded in Greek in some forms by », in Latin by s, afterwards 
becoming v (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 133, cp. iv. 211 f.). For te and the 
kindred forms see I. Bekker ‘ Hom. Bl’ i.160. Cp. Kuhn ‘Ztschr.’ x. 
290, Benf. i. 294.— Or could we venture to assume a connexion 
with Skt. vdj-as (n.) ‘ strength’ and rt. vish ‘ execute ?’ 


593. i-rv-s shield-rim, felloe of a wheel, i-réa willow. — 
Skt. vaja twig, vt-ti-ka band, sling, ball, vé-tasd-s 
a kind of reed, vé-trd-s reed. — Zd. vaéti (fem.) 
‘ willow-twig (?). — Lat. vi-tu-s felloe, vi-tex, 
vitta (2), vi-men, vi-ti-s. — OHG. wi-d cord, wi-da 
willow, AS. widde rope |withy]. — Lith. vy-ti-s 
willow-switch, cask-hoop (Lex.), Lett. vitols 
willow, ChSl. vi-tt cyowwrdv. — Cymr. gwden 
willow. 


Pott W. i. 616, Benf. i. 288, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 133, Corssen i”. 
540, Fick i*. 783. — The F of i-rv-s is established by the Aeol. Bi-ru-s 
(Ahr. 32), by A 486 édpa iruv kauyy, the F of i-réa by x 510 (ua- 
Kpai rT atyetpot kal iréar) and other passages in Homer, and by y:réa in 
Hesych. According to Suidas irv-s also occurs in the sense of iréa 
so that even Lobeck ‘ Paralip.’ 3'7 c»mjares the two words with 
each other and with the Lat. weo vimen. The Lat. vitu-s (abl. vitu, 
dat. abl. plur. wétw-bus, but also nom. plur. vzti) is established con- 
vincingly fom the grammarians by Joh. Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.* xxii. 
314. In Marius Victorinus (Keil ‘Gramm.’ vi. 56, 18) witi in rotis 
is the reading of the MSS. Further we may add with Pott oico-s 399 
¢‘ yellow-willow,’ oicv-a ‘a kind of willow.’ On o for F see p. 575. 
The by-form evovivovs ‘Inscr. of Andania’ (edited by Sauppe, Gott, 
1860) 1. 22 is remarkable. — The rt. of all these words plainly occurs 
in the Skt. wa (vjd-ja-mt) ‘entwine,’ va (vd-ja-mi) ‘ weave,’ ‘ plait,’ 
in the Lat. wie-o, in the ChSl. vi-t7, Lith. vy-t2 ‘twist’ (a cord) 
(Schleich. ‘Ksl.’ 134, Miklos. ‘ Lex.’ 65), expanded in Goth. w-d-an 
‘bind up,’ vin-d-an ‘wind.’ Cp. No. 594. — Stokes ‘ Beitr.’ vin. 345 
adds also Olr. féith ‘fibra, but an Ivish word for ‘ willow,’ which 


4:7 4, BOOK II. 


belongs here, seems to occur in the adj. féthaide, which occurs several 
times as an epithet of a ‘carriage’ (carpat fidgrind féthaide). Add 
also Iv. fiam ‘a chain which went round the neck.’ 


594. ‘oi-vo-s wine, oi-vn vine, olvd(d)-s vine, grape, wine, 
olv-apo-v, oivo-v (Hesych.). vine-leaf, vine-tendril, 
oiv-dv0n vine-shoots, -blossom, grape. — Lat. 
VU-NU-M. 


The F is retained in Alcaeus (Ahr. ‘ Aecol.’ 32) and in Doric dialects 
(Ahr. ‘Dor.’ 48, 55), and is clearly to be recognized in Homer. 
(Knés 138). — Pott i*. 120, i. 246 (cp. W. i. 619) and Benf. i. 288 
took 7 (No. 593) to be the root. Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 191 denies this, 
allowing this derivation indeed for v7-éi-s, but neither for oivo-s nor 
for vinu-m, which he prefers to compare with Skt. vénd-s ‘ dear,’ 
laying stress upon the fact that vénd-s is occasionally an epithet of 
the Soma-drink, so highly celebrated in the Vedas, and in fact 
deified. So Pictet 1. 254. But Pott ‘Personennamen’ 584 has 
rightly returned to the old explanation. It is impossible to separate 
ei-nu-m from vi-ti-s, and the words immediately related to oivo-s, 
which are collected above, prove that the Greek words were by no 
means exclusively used of the drink, but just as much of the vine. 
Pott very appropriately compares the Lith. ap-vy-ny-s ‘ hop-tendril,’ 
plur. ap-vy-ne-i ‘hops. The Skt. véni-s ‘ braid of hair’ also belongs 
here. We cannot see why the fruit of the twining plant should not 
itself have been called originally twiner. The fact is therefore that 
the Indo-Germans had indeed a common root for the idea of ‘winding, 
‘twining,’ and hence derived the names of various pliant twining 
plants, but that it is only among the Graeco-Italians that we find 
a common name for the grape and its juice. The northern names 
(Goth. vein, neuter, as against the German masc. etc.) are undoubtedly 
to be regarded with Jac. Grimm ‘ Gramm.’ iii. 466 as borrowed: so 
also the Keltic (Ebel ‘ Beitr.’ ii. 154): Olr. fin ‘ vinum,’ Cymr. guin 
‘vinum, Ir. finemain ‘vitis,’ caer finemnach ‘uva’ (Z?. 53, 127, 265). 
—Friedr. Miller wishes to derive the Graeco-Ital. word from the 
Ethiopic ween ; it is the reverse with Pictet 1.317. Hehn®* 504 ff. 
pronounces very decidedly in favour of the origin of the vine and its 
name from the Semitic. Just as decidedly does A. Miiller (Bezzenb. 
‘Beitr,’ i. 294) deny the original Semitic character of the Semitic 
words Aeth. wein, Hebr. jain. 


595. d-i-s, oi-s sheep, ot-eo-s of a sheep, of-a, 6-a sheep- 
skin. — Skt. dv-i-s, avi-kd-s sheep, avi-ka ewe, 
duj-a-s, avj-dja-s oieos. — Lat. Umbr. ovi-s, Lat. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.75 


ovi-li-s, ovi-llu-s. — Goth. avi-str sheep-cote, av- 391 
éthi flock of sheep, OHG. auw-i ovicula [ewe]. 
— Lith. avi-s sheep, dvi-na-s wether, ChSl. 
ovi-ca ovis. — Ir. di ovis. 


Bopp ‘G1. Grimm ‘ Gesch.’ 34, Pott W. i. 654, Stokes ‘Corm. Gl. 
Transl.’ p. 127.— Miillenhoff ‘Gl. zum Quickborn’ under 4-lamm 
discusses this Low-German word, for which in Westphalia there is 
Au-lamm, a word still in use with the meaning ‘she-lamb’ [Eng. 
ewe, AS. eown]. The retention of the a in the Lat. avillus, ‘ agnus 
recentis partus’ (Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 14, according to the reading of Loewe 
‘ Prodr.’ 349) is noteworthy. To this we may add aububulcus ‘ pastor 
ovium’ (cod. ‘ bovium’) quoted there from glossaries, which is certainly 
rightly compared with immoBouxédo. and similar words: and ai-rédo-s, 
ai-yumid-s, according to Gust. Meyer’s explanation (‘ Stud.’ viii. 120) 
‘shepherd,’ ‘ sheep-vulture.’ Fréhde’s attempt (Bezzenb. ‘ Beitr.’ 1. 
327) to connect avillu-s with ag-nu-s does not convince me. a beside 
o as in dare beside do-s.— The Skt. dvi-s as an adjective means 
‘ devoted,’ ‘attached,’ and is probably derived from the rt. av discussed 
under No. 586. According to this the sheep was called ‘pet,’ 
‘favourite,’ from its gentleness, as I conjectured ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 34. So 
Pictet ‘ Orig.’ 1. 357. Schleicher ‘ Comp.*’ 371 conjectures that it is 
derived from rt. av ‘clothe.’ — Perhaps Oiry is connected with the 
meaning ‘sheep:’ ‘Sheep-Mountain:’ in that case the name would 
approximate to the Goth. av-éthi. 


596. oi-wvd-s large bird. — Skt. vi-s (m.) bird, vdjas 
(n.) poultry, birds Sa Zd. vi (m.) bird. 
— Lat. avi-s. 


Benf. i. 21.— We must assume the stem avi as Indo-Germanic, 
from this came Gk. 6f:, oi, with an ampliative suffix (cp. vi-wvd-s) 
di-wvd-s (Alkman Fr. 60, 1. 6 Bergk *), oi-evd-s: in Skt. the initial 
vowel was lost (cp. pi = apt). — Benfey regards ai-e-ré-s (aiBerds aerds 
Tepyato. Hesych.) as related, comparing it immediately with Skt. 
vi-ja-ti-s ‘bird;’ and also é-a ‘ sorbus’ (by-forms 67, oi, oda), The 
fruit of the tree, the sorb-apples [Germ. Vogelbeeren ‘ bird-berries ’| 
are also called ova (n.) or da. 


597. w6-v (@0-v) egg. — Lat. dvu-m. — OHG. ez (plur. 
eig-ir). 

Pott i’. 122, Benf. i. 22.—From the form recorded by Hesych. 

Bea ra wa “Apyeior, and from the trisyllabic @o-y used by Sappho 


[Fr. 112 Bergk| we may (in spite of Lobeck ‘ El.’ i. 442) argue with 
certainty to an older Graeco-Italic dvjo-m, of which the Roman 


4.76 BOOK It. 


suppressed the j, the Greek the fF. But both of these with the 
ancient a have been remarkably preserved in the modern Greek form 
dvyé, i.e. avgo, as I have shown ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 231. (The a of the 
Modern Greek dvyé = 6d-v is evidently not very old, but has come 
from the o of ovjén in accordance with a change common in Modern 
Greek. The Trapezuntine form évyén (according to the ordinary 
spelling wiydév) proves this. So Deffner writes to me.) In the OHG. 
g too a trace of the v is still remaining, though it has changed its 
place. ‘Leskien calls my attention to Ch8l. aje, jaje ‘ ovum’ (Miklos. 
‘Lex.’ 1148): the first 7 of the second form is that which so frequently 
occurs, which strictly speaking has originated in the spir. lenis: jaje 
is therefore a parallel to @6-y.— Hence Benfey’s acute conjecture 
is extremely probable, that the primary form dyja-m, which we 
must assume, is a neuter adjective from the stem avi ‘bird,’ which 
under No. 596 we saw to be Indo-Germanic, with the meaning 
dpvidevov.— Stokes ‘Corm. Gl. Transl.’ p. 128 separates the Keltic 


- words Ol. og, Corn. uy (plur. uyen) ‘egg’ (Z*. 285, 1014) from 


the Gk. dév and Lat. ovwm on the ground of the g in Irish. 


Spiritus asper. 


A Greek spiritus asper is in the following words the 
representative of an Indo-Germanic initial s followed by a 
vowel, which s is retained in the other languages, with the 
exception of the Persian and the British family. 


598. Prefix d-, d-, 6- with. — Skt. sa- sam with. — — 
ChSl. sa-, su-, st-, OPr. sen, Lith. sq-, sa-, su- 
with. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott 17. 129, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 136, ‘ Lit. Gr.’ p. 280. — 
The aspirated form has been preserved only in 4-6pdo-s (Herodian 
on M 391) and 4-ma-s, but the so-called a copulative is found very 
commonly with the spir. lenis, e.g. in d-Aoxyo-s (No. 173), a-dehp-erd-s 
= Skt. sd-garbh-ja-s, i. e. co-uterinus (Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 11, 129), a-me80-s 
= iod-nedo-s ‘plain, more rarely as 6, as in é-marp-o-s, 6-(vé. Cp. 
Lobeck ‘EI.’ i. 41, 86, Clemm ‘Stud.’ viii. 90 ff. This prefix has 
no direct connexion with ovv, éiv, nor with Latin cwm-, con-, co- or 
the German ga-, ge-, but d-pa (No. 449), and perhaps No. 599 may 
be regarded as akin. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 477 


599. &@ in d-maé once, d-mddo-s single, € in €-KaTdé-v 
(No. 18). — Skt. sa-kft once, sa-hdsra one thou- 
sand, Zend ha-keret once. — Lat. sim-plex, sin- 
guli, sin-cin-ia (‘cantatio solitaria’ Paul. Epit. 
p. 337). 

Pott i’. 129, ‘ Ziihlmethode’ 150, 156, Benf. i. 381, Corssen i?. 
376.— The numerals here grouped together point with certainty to 
a stem sam, sa with the meaning ‘one,’ and probably akin to Nos. 
598 and 449. Of these d-ra& is formed by composition with rt. way 
(No. 343). sa-hyt with rt. kart ‘ cut,’ sim-plex for sem-plew with rt. 
plic plicare : singuli is however a diminutive formation for sen-culi 
(cp. homun-culu-s) with g for ¢ as in quadrin-genti; with this J. 
Grimm ‘Gramm.’ ili. 697 well compares the OLat. nin-gulu-s = 
nullus (Fest. 177 M.), which we must probably trace back to 
ne-oint-culu-s with Vahlen ‘ Ztschr. f. d. dsterr. Gymn.’ 1860 p. 15. 
sem-per reminds of parum-per, paullis-per. It is harder to explain 
sem-el ; cp. No. 449. Withthe stem sam = Gk. 4 Pott and after him 
Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vy. 161, viii. 129, Ahrens ib. 343, connect also the 
Gk. st. €y, which would then be for és. In favour of this view the 
fem. y-ia may be especially quoted: this would then be explained 
from é€u-va or sm-ia, and similarly the Cretan numeral adverb 
du-axis (cp. é&dxs), the Tarentine dy-aris = d-naé (Hesych.). Still 
€eus or €ets, which is well supported at one place in Hesiod (‘ Th.’ 145), 
causes difficulty (cp. Rzach ‘ Dial. des Hesiod’ p. 422). The forms 
ta, tg with oio-s must in any case be completely separated from the 
stem sam. Cp. No. 445. 

600. Stem apo (duo) auo-Oev from somewhere or other, 
auos, &unyéemrn somehow or other. — Goth. swin-s 
some one or other, sum-an (adv.) some time, once. 


Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. sama, with which as well as with Gk. dya-, duo0- he 
identifies this stem: this is easily done by means of the notion of ‘one.’ 
Thus a kinship with No. 599 is also established. Still the above- 
mentioned use of this stem as an indefinite, common, as it appears, 
only to these two languages, deserves especial notice—For the Greek 
forms belonging here among which those compounded with negatives 
(ovd-apod, ynd-apes) are the most usual, cp. Kiihner, ‘A. Gr,’ i. 471. 

600 b. at-o, adp-avw dry, parch, avo-s, avadéo-s, avo- 
Tnpo-s dry, rough, av-x-d-s drought. — Skt. gush 
(ctish-ja-mi) dry, wither, etish-ka-s dry, Zd. hush 
dry.— AS. sed” dry, OHG. sérén dried up. — 
Lith. séus-a-s, ChSl. such-% dry. 


393 


478 BOOK II. 


Fick i°. 802, Bugge ‘ Ztschr.’ xx. 33.— 1 formerly added the 
Greek words to No. 610. But the spir. asp. is established for 
avw* ~npaivw by Herodian (ed. Lentz i. 546). The original initial s 
has been preserved in cav-xd-v" Enpdv Supaxovovoe (Hes.). The ¢ of the 
Sanskrit root has arisen from s, as the Zend word shows; hence sus 
is the Indo-Germ. root. With Paul ‘ Ztschr.’ xvii. 17 I omit 
siccu-s. A by-form of avo is a for a(F)-jo, with an, afadéos (‘ Greek 
Verb, p. 226): cp. dumdfovra* dvamavovra. Hesych. (‘Greek Verb’ 
p- 224). I leave ev ‘singe’ under No. 610. 


601. Pronominal stem é (08, of, €) ope him (her)-self, 
themselves, éd-s, 6-s, opo-s own, his (her, their) 
own, i-d.0-s own. —- Skt. sva- (OPers. huwa) self, 
sva-s own, sva-jdm self; Zd. hva, ga suus. — 
Lat. sé, suu-s (OLat. sowo-s). — Goth. si-k self, 
své-s iSios. — ChSl. se (ace.), Lith. save self, ChSl. 
se-bé sibi, svo- (in composition) own, svo-j, Lith. 
Sava-s-is SuUs. 


Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ 11.126, Windisch ‘Stud.’ 11. 329 ff. — Cp. No. 305. 
— The use of the pronoun is originally generally reflexive, by no 
means confined to the third person, and has been retained as such to 
the present time in the Letto-Slavonic languages, and also in many 
traces in the Teutonic languages. Cp. Miklosich ‘On the reflexive 
use of the pronoun od,’ ‘Sitzungsberichte der Wiener Academie’ i. p. 
76, Jac. Grimm ‘ D. Gr.’ iv. 319, and more thoroughly, with a special 
reference to the Homeric usage, Brugman ‘ Ein Problem der homer. 
Textkritik’ Leipz. 1876.— The oldest form of the stem was probably 
sava, in Greek represented by ée (for oeFfe) and éo (for cefo), whence 
Hom, é-s swus. Thence arose by syncope sva Gk. *ofe, and with 
loss of the o Fe, €: and on the other hand with the loss of the v Lat. 
sé, Goth. si-k. For the numerous traces of the Ff see Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 
31, 170, f., ‘Dor.’ 42, 250, Knés 206 ff. Fi-8v0-s (Tabb. Heracl.) is for 
ofe-Sio-s (cp. di-di0-s, poup-idio-s) with a weakening of e into « as in 

394 to-& ‘be.’ Froehde ‘ Ztschr.’ xii. 160 adds éra ‘ relatives’ (Elic nom. 
sing. Fera-s). Fé-rn-s : Fe = oiké-rn-s : oiko. Cp. p. 686.— Oscan 
svat = Lat. si (Corssen i%. 778) certainly belongs here, and very 
probably Gk. ai, et; hence Homer. érei with a long first syllable, to 
be explained from ér-fFe., and, as Hugo Weber (‘ Die Partikel kay’ p. 
102) acutely conjectures, Hesych. Baixay...Kpjres, i.e. et kev. Op. 
Gerland ‘Griech. Dat.’ p. 15. — The by-form of *ofe, ode (adeis, opé- 
tepo-s) is derived by Fick i*. 795 from the primitive form sa-bha, 
comparing the Pruss. swbba, Goth. si-d-ba ‘self’ I still hold, on the 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 479 


strength of the complete identity of usage with ofe, to the assumption 
of a unique hardening of of to o¢, to be discussed on p. 442. From 
opiv comes Laconian piv, so Homer. 7 (‘as’) from ogy. Cp. ‘Ztschr.’ 
in. 75, 394.— Perhaps this stem occurs in OIr. feib ‘as,’ fadesin 
‘self’ (3 pers.), fanisin ‘ self’ (1 plur.), fesin ‘self’ (3 pers.), Z?. 366. 


602. i-ud-s (st. i-vavr) thong, f-pov-.é well-rope, iudooc-@ 
flog, (udo-OAn whip. 

Skt. rt. st (st-nd-mi, si-nd-mi) bind, st-mdn, s7- 
mdnta-s top of the head, limit; Zd. Ai-ta bound, 
bridled. 

OS. si-mo vinculum, OHG. se?-/, sei-d laqueus, 
tendicula, MHG. si-/ harness for draught-cattle. 

ChSl. sz-lo laqueus, sé-tt tendicula, s7-tiye juncus. 


Pott W. i. 630, Bopp ‘ G1.,’ Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 374, 1. 131, 457. — 
Much quoted there I place under rt. cep No. 518. For the form 
indoo-@ = ivat-j-w@ Ebel ‘ Ztschr. i. 298. The forms f-pav, i-pavr, 
and f-war seem to me to be formed from the rt. i= sz, and the r I 
regard as an expanding suffix (‘ Ztschr.’ iv. 214). Cp. Lat. semen-ti-s. 
From ipdo-OAn, i.e. ivar-Odn (cp. ex-é-rAn and Oe-pe-Odo-v), came by 
aphaeresis pdocOn. It was natural also, with Lobeck ‘El. i. 76 to 
explain paoré (Hom. dat pdori, acc. pdori-v) from a form “ivaor-r-é. 
But I now prefer to connect the word, along with paorigw, with the 
rt. pa (p. 312), paterOa ‘feel, ‘touch,’ a conjecture made already, as 
Vanicek reminds me, by Gust. Meyer ‘ Stud.’ v. 111. 


603. Pronominal stem 6, fem. a, 7. — Skt. sa, sa-s he, 
s@ she. — OLat. ace. su-m, sa-m. — Goth. sa the 
(m.), sé the (f.), st she. — OI. ace. plur. -so, -su 
in impu (for *imb-su) circum eos, etarro (for 
*etar-so) inter eos. 


Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ 11. 134, Max Schmidt ‘De pronomine Graeco et 
Latino’ p. 10 sq.— The common-Greek forms o-nepo-v, o-nres ‘ to- 
day,’ ‘ this year ’ (Att. r-jpepo-v, r-jres) are compounded with this stem. 
The OLat. forms su-m, sa-m, so-s, sa-s occur in Ennius (Vahlen p. 
229), the compound sa-psa = i-psa in Pacuvius (Ribb. ‘ Trag.’ v. 324). 
The locative of this stem appears with the appended demonstrative 
¢ in st-ce, shortened s?-c (sez-c), without this in the much discussed sz 
remps lex esto, where st is pretty certainly ‘so’ (Ritschl. ‘ Rhein. 
Mus.’ viii. 303) [cp. Corssen i?. 777, ii. 847, Wordsworth ‘ Fragments 
and Specimens of Early Latin’ p. 108]. The ablative has been 
pointed out by Loewe ‘Prodr.’ 350 from glossaries in sd-c ‘ita.’ — 


480 BOOK II. 


Among the pronominal elements of Irish, often hard to determine, of 
which many contain s, the following among others probably belong to 

395 the old stem sa: the demonstrative adverb so, don buith so ‘ huic 
mundo,’ the former part of su-de, suide ‘hic,’ so-dain ‘hoc, OGall. 
so-sin celicnon ‘ hance turrem’ (Z?. 346); the nom. and ace. sing. neut. 
of the article (s)an-, and the unchanging relative pronoun of the same 
form; in both cases the s is retained only after certain prepositions : 
trissa n-dede sin ‘per hoc utrumque,’ tresa m-bi ‘per quam est’ (Z?. 
214, 341). | 


604. Root 6 v-ex it rains, d-e-rd-s rain. — Skt. su (su-nd- 
mt) press out juice, su-md-m milk, water, sky. 


Benf. i. 408, Pictet 1. 138, Pott W. i. 1341, Aufr. and Kirchh. ui, 
268. — This etymology, which Bopp ‘Gl. gives only doubtfully, has 
indeed this fact against it, that the Skt. rt. sw (Zend hw), as a simple 
verb, occurs only of the pressing of the plant, which serves for the 
preparation of the Soma-drink that gets its name from this. Cp. 
No. 556, where ceiw, cddo-s are discussed. But in composition with 
abhi it means, according to the ‘Pet. Dict.’ also ‘ besprinkle,’ and 
the substantives quoted in the text make it probable that this use 
was of old date: perhaps we may add to them also Goth. satv-s, 
mari-saiv-s diwyvn. These various meanings may be well explained 
from the fundamental idea of a shaking motion. Perhaps it is even 
not too bold to assume an original kinship of this root with the fol- 
lowing (Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ vi. 365). Cp. No. 497. — We may with some 
probability place here also vado-s, vedo-s ‘ crystal,’ ‘amber, ‘ glass,’ 
adder’ Siahavés (Hesych.): cp. Sonne ‘ Ztschr. xu, 359. The substan- 
tive probably meant properly ‘rain-drop.’ 


605. v-id-s son. — Skt. rt. su, su% (sdv-d-mi, sau-mi) 
beget, bear, su-ta-s, sii-nu-s, Zd. hunw filius. — 
Goth. su-nu-s. — ChSl. sy-nt, Lith. su-nd-s son. 
— Olr. suth fetus (Z*. 239). 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 1314.— The stem of the Greek word varies 
between vi (nom. plur. vi-es), vi-o and vi-v (dat. viet). The last stem is 
placed beyond question by the forms HYIHYS (old Laconian with a 
surprising interaspiration), HYIY, HYYS (once monosyllabic) estab- 
lished from inscriptions by Neubauer ‘Hermes’ x. 153 ff. Add now 
from the Philippeion in Olympia the acc. vivv. For vids we often 
find also tés written, Baunack ‘Stud.’ x. 89, Lob. ‘El. i. 137. No 
one has succeeded as yet in tracing the different stems to one single 
form. The suffix -w reminds us of the Skt. ju, e. g. bhug-jd-s ‘flexible’ 
(Lindner ‘ Altind. Nomin.’ p. 99); cp. 74-t beside pa-jd-s (No. 372). 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 481 


Pott derives also the poet. i-w-s ‘son,’ as a fem. ‘daughter,’ from this 
root, comparing it with the ON. sveinn‘ puer, ‘juvenis:’ it would in 
that case be for *sv-in-i-s.— The derivation of the word from dew, 
which is mentioned above at No. 604, may be found in Eustath. p. 
1384, 59 in the midst of many absurdities. It is supported by the 
fact that the rt. hu (hundmi) has according to Justi these very 
two meanings ‘ beget,’ ‘ bear,’ and ‘press out.’ — Cp. No. 579. [On 
the question whether the suffix has an active or a passive sense cp. 
— * Owens College Essays’ ix. p. 309, and Fick ‘ Spracheinheit’ p. 267]. 


The Spiritus asper 396 


appears in the following words as the representative of an 
original 7, preserved in the other languages, with the ex- 
ception of Irish, or replaced by the cognate vowel 7 (e). 


606. Pronominal stem 6, nom. 6-s, fem. &, 7 who, as as. 
Skt. ja-s n. ga-t who, which, ja@-t as. — Zd. ya who. 
Goth. ja-bai if, jaw whether. 

Lith. ji-s he, 71 she, 7% the (more), ChSl. ¢ he, ja 
she, ye it. 


Bopp ‘Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 162, Schleicher ‘ Ksl.’ 262 f., ‘Lit. Gr.’ 196, 
Wincisch ‘Stud.’ ii. 203 ff. — On the Locrian inscription edited by 
Ross (L. 1854) 1.6 occurs the form fé-r as the neuter of the pro- 
noun. If this F is to be regarded as the sign of an original v, it 
would tell against the grouping of the Greek relative pronoun with 
the Skt. ya-s. But this inscription, which, according to Kirchhoft’s 
‘ Studies in the History of the Greek Alphabet *’ p. 136 ‘cannot be 
ascribed to a date much before the beginning of the Peloponnesian 
war, shows in many respects a certain laxity of spelling. For instance, 
the F is indeed written in petaforxéo, Fidwkeva, Faoords, but it is 
omitted A l. 8 in oi, where we have actually the spir. lenis. This 
appears also in 6 =6 B 1. 1, 5, while HATEN is written for dye. 
No wonder that this writer also introduced his F once in the wrong 
place. Now as F is written also in some other instances incorrectly, 
and in one place, where we may argue the existence of an old j 
(TAaciaFo — Corcyr. inscript. Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ 1.118), we ought not 
to be misled by this, as I have tried to show in Jahn’s ‘Jahrb.’ Vol. 
71 p. 354. Pott 11%. 366 and Sonne ‘ Ztschr.’ x11. 273 agree in this 
opinion. Cp, Allen ‘Stud, iii, 252. The former, who usually follows 

baal 


482 BOOK II. 


Thiersch in questions relating to the digamma, quotes éccos as 
also digammated. This is due to an error. On the tables of 
Heraclea we find FOZ=A and the like. F is here always the sign of 
the rough breathing (Ahr. ‘ Dor.’ 35). Now inasmuch as these tables 
have in many cases faithfully preserved a very ancient F (LE), but 
here do not insert it, their testimony goes against, not for the view, 
that this letter once preceded the relative stem. The form Badixorns* 
avvéednBos Kpires (Hesych.) adduced by Savelsberg ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 402 
to prove a F in the relative stem, has nothing in the world to do with 
this: on the contrary it may easily belong to the st. ofe (No. 601), 
so that it means ‘suae aetatis adolescens’ (cp. tyAtko-s, myAiko-s). 
Thus the Locrian inscription remains the only evidence for it. But 
who will prefer to build on such weak foundations new combinations, 
especially in the case of a stem so widely used, if others are better 
recommended in every respect from the point of view of language ? — 
I regard the stem ja as an expansion of the 2, which occurs most 
plainly in the Lat. z-s, z-d, OLat. 7-m, and in the appended ¢ of 

897 otroc-i, 65-i. We can see clearly in the demonstrative use of 6-s 
(cai 6s pn) how the relative developed by degrees from the demon- 
strative as used in anaphora. In Ch8l. ¢ (originating in y2z) used by 
itself has the meaning of the Lat. 7s, in composition with the particle 
%e, which corresponds to Gk. ye (t-%e = é0-ye) it has that of Gk. 6-s, 
Skt. ja-s. — Skt. jat = os is discussed by Kuhn in Hoefer’s ‘ Ztschr.’ 
ii. 175. We shall return to it on p. 602. — The Skt. ja-vat ‘ quamdiu ’” 
corresponds to the Gk. éws, the older form of which, — the form which 
we are to assume for Homer— was fos, for 7-Fos, d-Fos, hence Dor. as. I 
have shown in the ‘Rhein. Mus.’ 1845 p. 242 ff. that it is from this 
that we must explain the Homeric use of this particle as a trochee, 
and its later change into an iambus, and that the form ciws has 
absolutely no authority. Cp. p. 577. [‘Stud ii. 193 ff.] 


607. Pronominal stem te, Acol. tue, tpets, Acol. dupes. 
— Skt. yushmé. — Goth. Lith. ju-s you. 
Bopp ‘ Vgl. Gr.’ ii. 110, Schleicher ‘ Comp.?’ 634, Max Schmidt ‘ De 


pron. Gr. et Lat.’ p. 8.— The base-form is ju, expanded by sma, ju- 
sma, for which Skt. jushma. 


608. Stem tvopiv (dat. topiv-r), topivn battle. — Skt. 
judh (judh-ja-mi) to fight, yudh (m.) fighter, (f.) 
fight, battle, jwdh-md-s fighter, fit for fight; Zd. 
yud fight. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ where Keltic words are also compared, as in Pictet ii. 
190, and the OHG. gund ‘ battle’ is conjecturally added. The latter 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 483 


assumption is repeated by Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ vil. 17, Pott i*. 252, 
Benf. i, 680. The last is probably right in referring ju-dh to ju 
‘bind,’ in the sense ‘ manus conserere. Cp. above p. 62. It is worth 
while noticing that Skt. rt. jw also means ‘defend’ and abhi-ju-g 
(No. 144) ‘fight.’ — From the Keltic languages certainly the iud- 
(‘fight’) of many proper names belong here. OCymr. Jud-nerth (nerth 
‘valor’), OCorn. Jud-prost (Cymr. prwst ‘bustle’), Arem. Lud-car 
(car ‘amicus’), cp. Z?. 126, Stokes ‘ Rev. Celt.’ i, 332 ff. 


A simple vowel 


appears as the representative of the Indo-Germanic vowel 
corresponding to it, i.e. d, €, o as the representatives of an @; 
a, 7, m as the representatives of an @;c and v as the re- 
presentatives of ¢ and u, in the following words, which are 
retained in the kindred languages, sometimes in a fuller form. 


608 b. Root a (for ca), Homer. &-eva aor. aoa. sate, 
dros insatiable, a-dnv (addnv, d&ddnv) to satiety, 
enough. 

Lat. sa-tur, sa-tis, sa-tiés, sa-ti-di(t)-s, sa-tie-td(t)-s, 398 
sa-tia-re. 

Goth. sdé-th (or sd-th-s) satiety, ga-sd-th-jan satiate, 
sath-s, OHG. satt satisfied. 

Lit. sd-ta-s satisfied, so-ti-s satiety, ChSl. sy-t% 
satisfied, sy-t7 satiety. 

Olr. sdith satias, sathech satur. 

Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ xxi. 467, Fick (but without the Greek and 
Keltic words) i°. 792. — The rough breathing as the representative 
of s has been preserved only in the reading of Aristarchus d-8yv (E 
203) and in the Homer. conj. éGyev or éwpev (‘Greek Verb’ p. 320), 
but o must be necessarily presupposed, as L. Meyer saw, for 4-ro-s, i.e. 
d-ga-ro-s (not dv-dro-s). For anv see below p. 649. — The a in a-peva,, is 
explained by the contraction (for dé-pevat). 


609. gap, eiap blood. — Skt. as-ra-m, as-an, ds-rg blood. 
— Olat. assir blood, assar-d-tum mixed with 
blood. 
_ Suidas s. v. €ap cites for the meaning ‘blood’ an anonymous poet ; 
cp. €ap* aiva Kumpiot, eiapordrns* aivondérns Hesych. The Alexandrian 
Ln 


399 


484, BOOK II. 


writers use the word also of the juice of plants. Paul.‘ Epit.’ p. 16: 
‘assaratum apud antiquos dicebatur genus quoddam potionis ex vino 
et sanguine temperatum, quod Latini prisci sanguinem assir vocarent.’ 
assir aiza Loewe ‘ Prodrom.’ 142, Pott iit. 113, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 136. 
— The form asar, which we must assume as Graeco-Italic, is most 
nearly approached by Skt. asva-m; the relation of the other Skt. 
forms is as yet undetermined, and so is the root. Greek éap is regular 
for éoap: the history of Latin orthography shows that no importance 
is to be ascribed to the double s of the Latin word. Savelsberg’s at- 
tempt (‘Ztschr.’ vii. 385) to derive the meaning ‘blood ’ from that of 
‘spring, and hence to identify the present éap with that discussed 
under No, 589, is quite unsuccessful. The verse quoted by Suid. 
’ and the reading 
clapovatis "Epwis mentioned by the BY. Scholia on T 87 (cp. M. 
Schmidt ‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 294) are sufficient to show that we have not to 
do here with any poetical metaphor. Such a one does, however, occur 
in clap éda‘as in Nicander Alexiph. 87; cp. ‘blood of the grape.’ — 
Fick i°. 503 adds Lett. assin-s ‘ blood.’ 


610. ev-w, ef-w singe, av-w kindle, Ev-po-s South-east 
wind (2). 
Skt. rt. wsh (Osh-G-mi for aus-d-mi) burn, ush-nd-s 
hot, warm ; Zd. ush burn, shine. 
Lat. rt. us Gr-o (us-st, us-tu-s), us-tor, us-tio, ustu- 
lare, Auster (?). 
OHG. usil-var gilvus, MHG. tis-el favilla. 


Bopp ‘Gl.,’ Pott W. i. 2, 322, Benf. i. 26, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 273, 
Aufrecht ib. v. 135.— The rt. ws has in these words retained the 
meaning ‘burn,’ while Nos. 612, 613 belong to the kindred meaning 
‘shine.’ ¢t-o : us = yev-w: gus (No. 131). From et and eve (fut. 
evo-w), — on the breathing cp. Steph. ‘ Thes.’ (latest edition) — come 
evo-rpar (ot BdOpat ev ois everac Ta xoupidia) and evo-ava (ra éykavpara) with 
the o retained, Pollux vi. 91.—av-, with the meaning ‘kindle,’ 
«490. The compound év-at-o with évav-o1s, évavo-pa (‘ glowing embers,’ 
‘kindling’ [ray dperdy, etc.]) has longer retained the original notion. 
By the. side of the rt. wsh we find in Skt. remains of a fuller rt. vas 
(Zd. vaih ‘shine’), from which uwsh has come by abbreviation, espe- 
cially vds-ard-s ‘day.’ This rt. vas = us occurs in Gk. éo-ria, Lat. 
Ves-ta. Cp. Corssen i?. 580 (otherwise Roth ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 218). For 
the traces of the F cp. Ahrens ‘Dor.’ 55. This explanation of these 
words I now prefer to my former one, according to which I placed 
them “under No. 206. — Other words formerly placed here are now 
under No. 600 b. . 


“se , » 7 , \ ” x af) 3 
nxt KOVLOT pal a&ewvot UTP@ TE Kal elapl TET Ui aot, 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 485 


611. 4-ni say (3 sing. Dor. 4-r/, Aecol. 7-07, impf. 1 sing. 
n-v, 3 sing. 4), #y-ave-v' elev Hes. — Skt. perf. 
3 sing. dh-a he spoke, speaks. — Lat. a-j-0, ad- 
ag-iu-m, ad-ag-io(n), Umbr. at-tu dicito. 


Bopp ‘Gl.’ s. v. ah, Pott W. iii. 725, Benf. ii. 64, ‘Stud.’ iv. 208.— 
The 1 sing. pres. occurs in Aristoph., the 3 sing. in Aleman and 
Sappho (Fr. 98 B.), the past tense is Homeric and Attic. The notion 
that 7 was nothing but $7 remained so entirely the prevailing one in 
the common grammatical tradition, in spite of its utter groundlessness, 
that Déderlein ‘Gl.’ 2199 advances the difference of the two stems as 
something quite new, though comparative grammar had long recog- 
nized it. The root is agh (cp. Armen. asel [for azel] ‘say,’ Hiibsch- 
mann ‘ Ztschr.’ xxiii. 25), Gk. dy, Lat. ag. It is defective in all three 
languages. [In Skt. it occurs only in the perfect.] Of the final x the 
only trace left is in #xavev (‘ Gr. Verb’ p. 181). The Gk. 7-pé is to be 
regarded as a present without thematic vowel, the x being dropped 
before the personal terminations, as in omAnv (No. 390); Lat. d-j-0 is 
for ag-i-o, the 2 sing. of which ag-is (= ais) perhaps still occurs in 
glossaries (Loewe ‘ Prodrom.’ 366), like mé-j-o for meig-t-0, mda-j-or for 
mdg-ior (Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ iv. 288, Fleckeisen ‘Zur Kritik der altlat. 
Dichterfragmente’ p. 6); to the same formation belongs Umbr. ai-tu 
=ajeto (Aufr. und Kirchh. i. 142). Corssen i’. 90 very properly 
places here ad-ag-iu-m (ep. map-ouia from otyn ‘song’ No. 615), ‘ what 
is spoken with reference to a thing,’ ‘saw’ (Zuwort); the kindred 
word adagio is discussed by Varro ‘L. L.’ vii. 31 M.; nég-a-re is 
certainly for ne-ig-d-re and comes from a noun ne-ig-u-s, In spite of 
the unexpected shortness of the stem-syllable. This word, as well as 
the frequentative axare (Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 3 ‘nominare’) formed from ag, 
the derivative axamenta (‘carmina Saliaria’), and imd-tg-ita-menta 
[Preller ‘Rémische Myth.’ p. 81] is discussed with convincing acute- 
ness by Corssen ‘ De Volscorum lingua’ Nurnb. 1858 p. 19 sq. 


612. €ALo-s, Att. #AL0-s Sun, a7-nALw-Tyn-s Hast wind. — 
Lat. Auséliu-s. 


TI have given reasons for this grouping in ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 29 ff. It rests 
upon the form preserved by Hesych. a@8éAtos* Atos Kpyres (Ahrens 
‘Dor.’ 48), from which we may explain both Homer. 7¢é\v0-s and Att. 
#dwo-s. It is noteworthy that the latter form occurs in Homer only 
once, 6271. But as a Lesb. atws has been preserved as well as the 
Lacon. dBap, i.e. afos, we may assume for dfédwos a by-form avéduos. 
This is to Awseliws as avos to Lat. *ausos, from which came aurora. 
Paul. ‘ Epit.’ 23 ‘ Aureliam familiam ex Sabinis oriundam a Sole dic- 


486 BOOK It. 


tam putant, quod ei publice a populo Romano datus sit locus, in quo 
sacra facerent Soli qui ex hoc Auseli dicebantur.’ The root is us 
‘burn, ‘shine’ (No. 610) and the Etruscan name of the Sun-god 

400 Usil is probably akin (Gerhard ‘ Ztschr. f. Alterthsw.’ 1847 No. 85). 
Cp. Schweizer ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 369, Ebel v. 67. Pictet, however, ‘ Ztschr.’ 
iv. 351, ‘ Orig.’ 11. 670 again tries to connect these words with Setpuos, 
Lat. sol, Goth. sautl, which we shall have to discuss on p. 551 (No. 
663). Others (Benfey ‘Or. u. Occ.’ i. 284, Corssen ‘ Beitr.’ 386, i’. 
349, Pott W. 1. 1, 733, Fick i°. 801) assume an intermediate form 
Saféhwo-s, from which they try to arrive at jéAvo-s and sd/, though they 
differ again widely in the manner in which they do so. I cannot see 
why there should be so much opposition to the assumption that the 
chief name of the sun was different with the Greeks and with the 
Romans. In the Nighantu thirty-one Indian names of the sun are 
recounted. We see just the same with the names of the moon; pry 
= mena (No. 471) became obsolete in both languages and was replaced 
in the one case by ceAnvn, in the other by lina. Now we have in 
Greek two names for the sun handed down to us. The one, Seiptos 
(No. 663), may very easily be connected with sd/, the other, in its 
oldest form 7édvos, still more easily with the similarly authenticated 
Ausélius. Why not admit that of these two the former became the 
prevailing one in Latin, and also in the Northern languages, the latter 
in Greek t — Above all we must not once more conjure up the pre- 
tended Pamphylian BaBédws, as Benfey and M. Schmidt did. This 
phantom has been recognized as such by Ahrens ‘ Dor.’ 49 note. As 
Hesychius gives us dBeAinv® Avaxnv Tappidco, which is confirmed by the 
alphabetic arrangement, the statement of Heraclides ap. Eustath. 
p. 1654, 20, that these same Pamphylians said BaBéduos cannot be 
correct. 


613. nds, Aeol. avws, Att. eds dawn, éwsdédpos dawn- 
bringing, avpio-v tomorrow, 7j-pi (adv.), nép-vo-s 
(adj.) early. 

Skt. ush (f.) morning, ush-d-s shining, ush-ds (f.) 
dawn, morning, ush-d (adv.) early, us-rd-s (adj.) 
morning, us-rija@ brightness, light; Zd. usha, 
ushanh dawn. 

Lat. aur-ora for aus-6sa. 

OHG. 6s-tan, ON. aus-tr oriens, OHG. 6s-tar (adv.) 
in the east. : 

Lith. ausz-rd dawn, dusz-ta day breaks, ChSl. u-tro 
morning. 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 4.87 


Bopp ‘G1.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 333, Benf. i. 27, Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ iii. 450, 
E! el v. 67, Savelsberg vii. 382 f., Fick i°, 512.— The Greek forms, 
to which d8o* mpi Adxewves (Hesych.) also belongs, are discussed 
by Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 38, ‘Dor.’ 49. But his view of the origin of 
the word (‘Ztschr.’ iii. 163) is altogether erroneous. The root is 
us ‘burn, ‘shine, from which comes also No. 612, as the Skt. 
shows to demonstration. The Indians and Persians form the words 
belonging here from the unstrengthened rt. ws, the European nations 
from the form aus, strengthened by the addition of sound. We may 
therefore assume ausos as Graeco-Italic ; from this all Greek forms 
may be explained by the loss of s, the Latin by its rhotacizing, and 
by the addition of a derivative a (cp. decdru-s beside decus). The p 
in av-pi-v is derivative, as in Skt. ws-rd, Lith. awsz-rd. Fick adds 
also Evpo-s ‘morning-wind, i. e. East-wind (cp. No. 610). From the 
Homer. 7ép-vo-s we may assume for 4-pe an older je-pt, and regard je 
as an abbreviation of the stem jos, like xkpve- in kpve-pd-s. Ape : népto-s 
= HAto-s : NéAvo-s = 7} : He = doa-pev (‘we slept’) : déoa-yev, I say this to 401 
remove Fick’s objections (‘ Ztschr.’ xxii, 95). Cp. Brugman ‘ Stud.’ ix. 
392. There is a fuller discussion in ‘ Stud.’ i1. 175, where I have shown 
that adpurrov ‘ breakfast’ belongs here: it has nothing in common with 
dpioro-s ‘ the best.’ Roth ‘ Ztschr.’ xix. 217 compares 7épio-s with the 
Ved. vasard-s ‘of the morning.’. This would be possible for this 
adjective, but not for the adverb 7px, which can hardly be separated 
from it, for its use in Homer does not admit af. Fick (also i*. 27) 
altogether separates jjp:, and compares it with the Zd. ayare ‘ day,’ 
Goth. air ‘ early’ (with Oly. an-dir ‘ easterly’ Z?. 611%). The com- 
bination ’Has npryéveca at any rate offers no ground for this, for the 
connexion between the proper name and the adjective can hardly 
have been felt. 


614. f-epd-s vigorous, holy. —- Skt. ish-ird-s vigorous, 
fresh, blooming. 


Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ 11. 274 establishes the use of the Skt. word as an 
epithet of mdnas ‘sense’ (iepdv pévos), dévd-s ‘ god, bhu-mi-s ‘ earth.’ 
According to the ‘ Pet. D.’ it is also an epithet of various gods, but 
means originally ‘juicy’ (¢sh fem. ‘juice, ‘strength, ‘freshness,’ 
‘courage’). «sh-ird-s is for is-ara-s, whence by the loss of the sibi- 
lant comes the Aeol. form i-apd-s, and from this "Ildpav (Giese ‘ Aeol. 
D.’ 409, Ahr. 26), later é-epd-s (Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 67). I have dis- 
cussed this, and the meaning ‘ vigorous, ‘active,’ which alone suits 
phrases like iepds ixOvs (II 407), icp) ts in ‘ Ztschr.’ iii, 154 ff. Of 
course in the time when the Homeric epos was most flourishing ‘ holy’ 


488 BOOK II, 


must have already become the prevalent meaning, but the older phy- 
sical meaning was retained in isolated phrases. . 


615. Root t e@-pe (pl. t-pev) go, i-rn-s, i-ra-p6-s straight- 
forward, energetic, of-yo-s path, way, oi-py 
course, tune, song (mpo-ofp-.o-v, map-o.p-ia), 
oi-ro-s fate, lot. ; 

Skt. rt. 2 (@mé, pl. ¢-mds) go, 7-tt-s a going, é-ma-s, 
é-man way, road. — Zd. 7 go. 

Lat. e-o (i-mus), i-tt-0(n), i-tu-s, i-ter (it-in-er). 

Goth. 7-ddhyja ivi. 

Lith. ei-mi (2 sing. e7-si, 3 sing. e¢-tt), ei-nw& go, 
ei-smé (Lex.) way, path, ChSl. i-da etc (inf. 7-¢7). 


Bopp ‘G1., Pott W. i. 396 ff.— As rt. 7 has been expanded in 
Skt. to ja, so Greek it has been expanded to ie, which occurs in éé-vat. 
From the same ja in a causative sense comes i-7-p, 1. e. *71-7G-mt, and, 
with the addition of a c, Lat. ja-c-i-0, as I have tried to show ‘ Philo- 
logus’ iii. p. 5 ff., ‘ Ztschr.’ ii. 400 (cp. above p. 62). The doubts of 
Pott ii?. 967 have the less effect, in that he himself brings out the 
difficulties of his own explanation from rt. as ‘ throw,’ which has not 
the least plausibility, except for the present-stem, Skt. ds-7a-mi. The 
objection that my assumption of a causative meaning for reduplica- 
tion is ‘ purely imaginative,’ is shown to be groundless by a reference 
to t-orn-y and si-st-o as compared with stare and orjvat, BiBdgw beside 
Bhva, Aedabov and €dabov, Fpapov, wpopov, dSédaov, Kexadov, Aéedaxov. The 
interchange between intransitive and causal meaning is a very com- 
mon one. Other points, which Pott describes as ‘left out of considera- 
tion, have been all well weighed in the places referred to. The view 

402 of Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ viii. 249 (developed and adorned with the 
usual abusive language in Bezzenberger’s ‘ Beitr.’ i. 301), that i-n- 
comes from the rt. sa, which occurs in se-r-0 for se-s-o, and which he 
also connects with s?-n-o, is open to many objections. To the middle 
ieoOa With its traces of an initial consonant, we return on p. 604. 
The use of épieoOa is sufficient to preclude us from separating the 
active from the middle. — For the forms expanded by dh (Gk. 6, Teut. 
Slav. d), to which belong i-6-pa, 1-6i-s, icé-pd-s p. 63 f. Bugge in 
Bezzenb. ‘ Beitr.’ iii. 100 adduces an excellent parallel to i-c6-yé-s 
from rt. ? in the ON. e@ (neut.) ‘strip of land between two seas.’ 
The meaning of tvs is established against the doubts of Pott W. i. 
161 by irm-s. Goth. zddja is discussed by Miillenhoff ‘ Haupt’s 
Ztschr.’ xii. 387. — Corssen’s objections (i7. 213, 454) seem to me all 
removed by the very probable assumption that from a very early 


REGULAR REPRESENTATION OF SOUNDS. 489 


date 7 and the expanded rt. ja existed side by side, as is the case in 
Skt. 
616. i-6-s arrow. — Skt. ¢sh-u-s ; Zend ishu arrow. 

Bopp ‘ Gl.,’ Kuhn ‘ Ztschr.’ ii, 137. — The «, as a rule long, is short 
in Hom. id-popo., and in Pindar, also in to-yéaipa. Brugman ‘Stud.’ iv, 
170 (Fick i. 509) is probably right in referring id-s to ic-F-o-s. B., 
and R. in the ‘ Pet. D,’ establish the root zsh (i.e. is) with the meaning 
‘let fly.’ dio-rd-s cannot have anything to do with this word, because 
it must have lost a consonant between o and «. 

617. Root ic wish, (6-rn(z)-s wish, will, ‘t-pepo-s Thea 
— Skt. rt. ish (ikKh-a-mt) seek, desire, iKKha wish, 
ish-td-s desired, ish-md-s (ish-md-s) god of love; 
Zd. ish wish. — OHG. eis-c-dn ask (heischen), 
eis-ca demand. — Lith, jészkd-ti, ChSl. isk-a-ti 
seek. 


Bopp ‘GIl.,’ Pott W. ii. 2, 310, Benf. i. 15, Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 160, 
Fick i°. 508. — The root is 7s. id-rn-s points to a lost adjective ié-s 
‘willing.’ On the suffix of ¢-pepo-s cp. Aufrecht ‘ Ztschr.’ i. 480, 
Kuhn ii. 275. We may add ‘Ivépa, ‘Iuepa-s, perhaps even "IuSpo-s (cp. 
peo-nuBp-ia). The o of the root is retained in io-pepa, which in Hesych. 
is explained like tuepa by ra mpéds rods Kabappods pepdpeva dvOn Kal orepa- 
vepara; and also probably in the proper name "Ic-pnvn Desiderata, 
"Io-pnvo-s, “Io-papo-s (son of Eumolpus, and the name of the wine-town 
of the Cicones). Ebel ‘ Ztschr.’ v. 66. Pott ‘ Ztschr.’ ix, 415 adds 
"Iupap-ado-s, who is also called son of Eumolpus, with pp = cp as in the 
Aeolic type = Skt. gushmat.— For the Italian words see Corssen 
‘ Ztschr.’ ix. 139, i’. 375.— Those of the northern languages go back 
to the noun stem 7s-ka preserved in the Skt. ik<hda. 


618. dvo-s. — Lat. as-inu-s. — Goth. as-ilu-s, ON. as-ni. 
— ChSI. 0s-t-l% ass (sel). 

Benf, i, 123, Pictet i. 354, and Stokes ‘ Ir. Gl.’ p. 159 consider the 
word to be of Semitic origin (Hebr. athén ‘she-ass’). After the 
historical explanations of Hehn*® 514 this now seems to me too the 
most probable, while it appears certain that the ass was not among 
the possessions of the Indo-Germans. A. Miller (Bezzenb. ‘ Beitr.’ 
i, 294) raises difficulties against the Semitic derivation. The Greek 
and Latin name on the one hand, the Gothic and Slavo-Lithuanian 
on the other are more closely connected. Perhaps the latter go 403 
back to the Lat. ase//u-s. — Ir. assal ‘ asinus,’ Cymr. assen, Corn. asen, 
(Z?, 823) are borrowed from Latin. 


619. ovs, Hom, pl. ovar-a, Att. dra. — Lat. ade aus 
Kk 


490 , BOOK It. 


cul-to. — Goth. aus-o (st. aus-an), OHG. drd 
[NHG. ohr]. — Lith. aus-i-s (fem.), ChSl. weh-o 
(gen. us-es-e) n. ear. — Olr. 6 auris (Z?. 33). 


Pott W. i. 643, 652, Fick 1°. 502, 405, Leo Meyer ‘ Ztschr.’ y. 369. 
— The words for the conception ‘ear’ have in fact only the initial 
diphthong in common: au, the earliest form of this, may still be 
recognized in the Tarentine form 4-ra, or, as we may probably write 
more correctly, d-r-a (@ra Hesych.), i.e. afar-a, dara, and in the modern 
Greek air-i (i.e. af-tt) = ar-io-v (E. Curtius ‘ Gott. Anz.’ 1857, ‘ Nach- 
richten ’ p. 311), and also in Lesb. map-ava, Pind. mapda, Hom. map-7(F)- 
io-v, Att. raped, i.e. 7d map’ ori, as Pott saw (11. 138). Cp. paddo-mdpavo-s* 
Aevkordpetos Hesych. Ahrens ‘ Aeol.’ 36, Brugman ‘ Stud.’ iv. 143. — 
We may suppose that we see in this diphthong the rt. av discussed 
under No. 586.— Now in three families of speech we find an s added 
to this stem. Cp. p. 64. From the stem aus come Lith. aus-?-s and 
Lat. aur-i-s for aus-i-s, by the addition of a derivative 7, Goth. aus-o, 
ChSI. weh-o (for us-o st. ws-es) by the addition of other suffixes. The 
s is also clearly retained in Lat. aus-culto. Hence it is probable that 
the Greek word also had originally a sibilant in the stem. I therefore 
regard avc-ar as the Greek primary form. The suffix -ar is the same 
that we saw added in youv-ar for yovv-ar, Sovp-ar for Sopu-ar. ova-ar 
is to avo-ar as ovpo-s to atvpa (No. 587). By the regular loss of the o 
this became ov-ar. This stem is the more common in Homer for the 
oblique cases. By the change of od into 6F (cp. Bof-ds) arose 6F-ar. 
Of this there is still a trace occurring in Lacon. é€Bddia" evoree 
(Hesych.). The F also was then dropped: Dor. dar (Ahrens ‘ Dor. 
246, so in Theocr. aud-des ‘ with two handles’), Ionic “dar, contracted 
or. As for the nom. sing. ods, either we have in it a shorter stem, as 
in yévv compared with your-ar:—this is the view of Froehde ‘ Ztschr. 
f. Gymnasialwesen’ 1864 p. 195, and at any rate it deserves con- 
sideration : — or ods is contracted from ovas, possibly directly from a 
by-form otos (cp, tdos and tdar) (see Ebel ‘Ztschr.’ xiii. 457, Gust. 
Meyer ‘Stud.’ v. 81). Cp. Herodian (ed. Lentz.) ii. 281. — We may 
further notice the Tzaconian form dfovrava, plur. a8ourave (Thiersch 
‘Sprache der Tzakonen’ p. 522). In this remarkable dialect ov is 
the regular representative of o, 8= fF; so that we get the stem dfor, 
to which a secondary expanding suffix is here superadded, 


END OF VOL, I. 


, DR. WM. SMITH’S 
THEOLOGICAL, GLASSICAL, & LATIN DICTIONARIES. 


‘I consider Dr. Wm. Smith’s Dictionaries to have conferred a great and lasting 
service on the cause of classical learning in this country. —DEAN LIDDELL. 


THEOLOGICAL. 


A DICTIONARY OF THE BIBLE; its Antiquities, Biography, Geo- 
graphy, and Natural History. By VARIOUS WRITERS. Edited by 
Wo. Smit, D.C.L. With Illustrations. 3 vols, Medium 8vo. 5/. 5s. 

A CONCISE BIBLE DICTIONARY. Condensed from the above Work, for 
- FAMILIES AND STUDENTS, With Illustrations. 9¢2 Edition. Medium 8vo. 2ts. 

A SMALLER BIBLE DICTIONARY. Abridged from the larger Work, for 
SCHOOLS AND YOUNG PERSONS. 11th Edition. With Illustrations. Crown 
8vo. 75. 6d, 

A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN ANTIQUITIES. The History, 
Institutions, and Antiquities of the Christian Church. By VARIOUS 
WRITERS. Edited by WM. SmiTH, D.C.L., and ARCHDEACON CHEETHAM, 
D.D. With Illustrations. 2 vols. Medium 8vo, 34. 135. 6d, 

A DICTIONARY OF CHRISTIAN BIOGRAPHY, LITERATURE, 
SECTS, AND DOCTRINES. By VARIOUS WRITERS. Edited by WM. 
SMITH, D.C.L., and HENRY WAcE, D.D. Vols I., II., and III, Medium 8vyo. 
31s. 6d. each (to be completed in 4 vols.). 


CLASSICAL. 


DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN ANTIQUITIES. By 
VARIOUS WRITERS. With 500 Illustrations. (1300 pp.) Medium 8vo. 28s. 
SMALLER DICTIONARY OF ANTIQUITIES FOR JUNIOR 
CLASSES. Abridged from the above Work. 12th Edition. With 200 
Woodcuts. Crown 8vo. 7s. 6d. 

A DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN BIOGRAPHY AND 
MYTHOLOGY. By VARIOUS WRITERS. With 564 Illustrations. (3720 pp.) 
3 vols. Medium 8vo. 4/. 4s. 

A DICTIONARY OF GREEK AND ROMAN GEOGRAPHY. By 
VARIOUS WRITERS. With 4 Maps and 534 Illustrations. (2512 pp.) 2 vols. 
Medium 8vo. 2/. 16s. 

A CLASSICAL DICTIONARY OF BIOGRAPHY, MYTHOLOGY, AND 
GEOGRAPHY, for the HIGHER FORMS IN SCHOOLS. Condensed from the 
above Dictionaries. 17th Zdition. With 750 Woodcuts. 8vo. 18s. 

A SMALLER CLASSICAL DICTIONARY FOR JUNIOR CLASSES. 
Abridged from the above Work. 19¢2 Zdition, With 200 Woodcuts. Crown 


8vo. 75. 6d. 
LATIN. 


A COMPLETE LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. With Tables of the 
Roman Calendar, Measures, Weights, and Money. 17¢h Edition. (1250 pp.) 
Medium 8vo. 21s. 


This work holds an intermediate place between the Thesaurus of Forcellini and the ordinary 
School Dictionaries, performing the same service for the Latin language as Liddell and Scott’s 
Lexicon has done for the Greek. Great attention has been paid to Etymology, 


A SMALLER LATIN-ENGLISH DICTIONARY. With a Dictionary of 
Proper Names. A New Edition, the 27th. Thoroughly Revised and partly 
Re-written. By Dr. WM. SMITH, and Prof. T. D. HALL, M.A. (730 pp.) 
Square 16mo. 7s. 6d. The Etymological portion by JoHN K. INGRAM, 
LL.D., of Trinity College, Dublin. 


This Edition is to a great extent a new and original work, Every article has been carefully 
revised, 


A COPIOUS AND CRITICAL ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY. Com- 
piled from Original Sources. 4th Edition. Medium 8vo, ais. 


This work is a more complete and perfect English-Latin Dictionary than yet exists, It has 
been composed from beginning to end precisely as if there had been no work of the kind in our 
language, and every article has been the result of original and independent research. 


A SMALLER ENGLISH-LATIN DICTIONARY FOR JUNIORCLASSES. 
Abridged from the above Work. 11th Zaition. Square 12mo. 7s. 6d. 


JOHN MURRAY, Albemarle Street. 


UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS-URBANA 


4820947G5.EW C001 v001 
PRINCIPLES OF GREEK ETYMOLOGY 4 


i LU 
i ‘ 
rect tae “a b 
aebbeaite ube ule ' 
CeCCent eee ak i i 
LD ett st iit .S 
Peeabatidad la nek 
De behveort tie eit (erent k i 
Hear eres nnd t “i ta ; b 
Lebt t i ts I a 
BA iibok 3 i i ‘ 
hal ne i ‘ 2 
Fea goat) A 
Wueeweb tt i vi t 
I wir) ( Coo Oe i 
alia pie at ee ‘ i 
NAHM eto eB i Pore { ie 
teehee tare aac { ‘ ‘ ' 
bprebtors ¢ aa it ‘ / “ { { i 
Lidbistiut it r ii { Pohiet 
‘ ' sea iti ‘ ‘ i i ‘ 
' eva t “i ' ‘ ‘ 
a ene RR ‘ ‘ 
‘ i yee 
nt ' ‘ ve ret 
had t eee r 
ire ay | ay 
aah ‘ ' bine 
' ce icine ‘ 
‘\ t it ; AULT ae 
} cf { 5 4 ‘ 
iy \ RAAT A Raine 
XH WebiGanberber t : # AG 
ti dr j i { t 
Sper j i t i st f t hey 
; ‘ ‘ LPO RS Fe 
ON CeaY ‘ ' ‘ : F A hh tr, 
bbe bie ut igi t 4 
is hi i ti } colect ap 
Pa fe t 
ri Povey kt ( 
ERK Bay edu fh, 
He teds iu! ‘ ; is 
10, i i! } ‘ it i H ae pike 
a é iy ‘ { i ; i Hen 
aes y i 14 , ty te 
ah RK Aven iid a 1 
tit rieiak Fi Wy var j { 
ti uy frees t y 
etl i ' An 
eee ate ; wil 
1, eee 
ie i a ‘ 
r cone 
; , Hick 
‘ VA H 
; é ‘ ; 
ret 
vel ; : , 
Mort 7 
ve pe Leet 
ts tae HEN ' t } 
f i rors : 
f i 
peerert ' 
i lee I : ; H 
: ’ 7 "4 ‘ 
4 ieee ' ) 
i i , « ? 
y A ‘ 
f 
} f ‘ ‘ 
Ni ( | 
ty i! 
i Here rete i 
i ‘, f { vr 
49 F deer t 
me fi tt t ' a , $ * 
) ' ve 
A 
re reer 
e; eae i 
i? ye { 
a, : f 
ae : } 
3 , 
fis 
+ His 
fd eee d 
i 
* ree 
pet 
nie ‘ 
verve . 1 ' aa) av b beg cch 8 tpn atta ‘. 
A A ie ae vedere lee COV PEC El ie vt : Wide : ' Pee Biba As 


